Archive for Global Warming
Leaked G20 Documents Show Carbon Taxes Still High on Globalist Agenda
This week The Corbett Report was sent documents purported to be the notes of an attendee of the recent Toronto G20 meeting. The documents, if genuine, show that the recent meeting once again gave the G20 a chance to discuss global government as an answer to the ongoing economic meltdown and reaffirm that carbon taxes are high on the globalists’ priority list.
The idea of funding a nascent global governmental structure through the introduction of carbon taxes is by no means a new one.
The notes were obtained from a source inside a South African bank whose CEO was a confirmed attendee of the Toronto meeting. According to the source, they are most likely notes from a feedback session between the CEO and bank officials upon the CEO’s return from the conference.
Download the documents in PDF format via this link.
According to the documents, the delegates concluded that a process of fiscal consolidation would be the key solution to the crisis, involving country-specific ideas with central coordination…presumably by the G20 itself. Although the delegates evidently discussed the need to address the sovereign debt crisis “through cutting expenses and not through increased taxes,” that statement is immediately followed in this attendee’s notes by the idea of introducing carbon taxes.
The idea of funding a nascent global governmental structure through the introduction of carbon taxes is by no means a new one, having been proposed as a funding mechanism for a North American Union at a secret Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Banff, Canada in 2006.
Perhaps not coincidentally, the idea was last floated in the G20 Finance Ministers’s meeting in Scotland last year. In leaked documents from that meeting it was revealed that attendees had seriously discussed the possibility of using a carbon tax to fund an international financial body which would supposedly be entrusted to look after climate adaptation and mitigation programs.
That the carbon tax was discussed during G20 deliberations comes as no surprise. Nor does the fact that the delegates deliberated on the need “to develop Global governance structures” and the desire for “coordination across countries.” The urge to use a manufactured economic crisis to institute a new international system of governance administered by the very bankers who created the problem in the first place has likewise been noted for years.
But there are hopeful signs that the globalists’ agenda is being derailed by a mass political awakening among the public, exactly as key globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski discussed in a recent speech. Perhaps the foremost hurdle to the implementation of the G20’s plans comes from fierce opposition to the carbon tax agenda in the United States exemplified by the fact that the current Senate climate bill is likely dead in the water. Another hopeful sign are those passages of the leaked documents that seem to suggest that national governments may be diverting from the globalist agenda in order to protect their national interests, including repeated references to the specter of increased protectionism as a result of the global downturn.
On a more ominous note, however, are references to the need to create a “B20″ or “Business 20″ to give unaccountable multi-nationals an even bigger stake in the nascent global governmental structure inherent in the G20 structure.
This year’s G20 drew the ire of Canadians and concerned citizens around the world for its $1.3 billion security budget and brutal treatment of protestors. The next G20 summit will take place in November in Seoul, Korea.
James Corbett - The Corbett Report
sursa: infowars.com
Depopulation Fanatics, Eugenicists Launch “Objective” Global Population Study
Royal Society’s initiative will provide textbook for population control agenda
The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, is to launch a major study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development, a study it has ludicrously branded “objective”.
“The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.” reports the BBC, along with a picture of a huge crowd of people crammed together (which is actually a rock concert of some kind).
“This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now,” said the leader of the study Sir John Sulston.
“So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively (emphasis mine) at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development.”
The manifestly obvious problem with this study, as anyone who knows anything about the Royal Society will note, is the fact that leading members of the group are obsessed with pushing a depopulation agenda.
The Royal Society is a 350 year old establishment outfit that has recently thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
The society has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
It was also intimately tied to the Whitewashing of the Climategate emails scandal.
As the BBC notes in their report, one of the members of the Royal Society’s working group for this population study is Jonathon Porritt. Porritt is the former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt is also a member of The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
An OPT article on today’s news opens with the line, “The human population is far higher than any other primate at any time in history”. This outlines exactly where these people will approach the study from.
Another notable member of both the OPT and The Royal Society is Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock.
Lovelock became a patron of the OPT in 2009. In a statement released by the trust to mark the appointment, Lovelock called on the environmental movement as a whole to “recognise the truth and speak out” on the link between rising human numbers and global warming.
Lovelock said: “Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”
He added: “How can we possibly decrease carbon emissions and land use while the number of emitters and the space they occupy remorselessly increases? When will the environmentalists who claim to be green recognise the truth and speak out?”
Lovelock also recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.
So you begin to see how laughable it is to expect the Royal Society’s global population study, which will certainly be used as a reference by other leading institutions and global bodies, to be in any way “objective”.
The OPT and The Royal Society also boast, as a patron, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough, who has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Attenborough is also on the Royal Society’s working group for this population study. Again, is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of the working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he recieved the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their population study will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
It is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
Alex Jones’ film End Game explains why the elite are obsessed with pushing eugenics and bizarre race hygiene philosophies. Click here for more clips.
The Royal Society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet to manipulate its climate, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into the area. The UK government recently published a lengthy report on geoengineering, drawing heavily on Royal Society research. The report proposed methods including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect produced by volcanic eruptions, as well as placing mirrors in space to reflect the Sun’s rays away from the Earth, a technique known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM).
The same talking points raised by the Society have been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.
Mass sterilization, one child policies and a”Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.
While you and I may think the notions of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized as the way forward for humanity.
MUST READ: The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies
Letting these modern day eugenicists mess with the planet would be like handing Dr. Josef Mengele control of the health care system. This group have proven themselves as total control freaks, promoting a brand of bloodthirsty eugenics even more depraved than anything Hitler proposed in his drive for a super race.
While the BBC notes in its report on The Royal Society that “The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity.” the facts tell quite a different story.
There is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.
Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends, and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report.
Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.
In addition, as highlighted by The Economist recently, global fertility rates are falling.
Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.
Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.
The real solution would be to pour funds into increasing the standards of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.
Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.
We are being bombarded daily with idiotic notions that the human race and life itself is a virus that has spread all over the planet and that we must consider stemming our own progression to counter it.
Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.
The Royal Society’s study is to be launched on “World Population Day”, and is due to be completed by early 2012 – I wonder what conclusion it will reach?
While they peddle their insane proposals, backed by rampant fearmongering over climate change on behalf of our governments and the mainstream media, it is we who are charged with saving the planet and our place on it by exposing their nefarious agenda of mass depopulation before it is too late.
MUST READ: The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies
Steve Watson
sursa: Infowars.com
Suprapopularea Pământului. Câţi sunt prea mulţi? - How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
“In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.
In his lengthy career, Sir David has watched the human population more than double from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly seven billion. He reflects on the profound effects of this rapid growth, both on humans and the environment.
While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth’s resources.
Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth.”
sursa: youtube.com
The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun
A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.
Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.
After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know.
The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs.
There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.
As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.
But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.
I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”.
Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.
So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.
The growing backlash against us skeptics makes me think of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which started in the 12th Century. Of course, no one (I hope no one) will be tried and executed for not believing in anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences.
Surely, equating a belief in natural climate change to the belief that the Holocaust slaughter of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis never occurred is a new low for science as a discipline.
The new paper also implicitly adds most of the public to the black list, since surveys have shown dwindling public belief in the consensus view of climate change.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D
sursa: prisonplanet.com
Professor: Only Global Governance Can Save Us From A Century Of Chaos
A major event that takes place in 2014 will plunge the world into a crisis that will characterize the rest of the century, according to Cambridge professor Nicholas Boyle, and only the introduction of global governance can save humanity from an era of poverty and violence.
“A ‘Doomsday’ moment will take place in 2014 – and will determine whether the 21st century is full of violence and poverty or will be peaceful and prosperous, according to a Cambridge University professor,” reports the Daily Mail.
“In the last 500 years there has been a cataclysmic ‘Great Event’ of international significance at the start of each century, he claims. Occurring in the middle of the second decade of each century, they include events which sparked wars, religious conflict and brought peace.”
In order to “fight climate change,” which as the Climategate scandal highlighted, is nothing more than a contrived fraud exaggerated and exploited by the elite in an effort to plunder the taxpayer and impose draconian rules and regulations on our day to day existence, as well as to solve the financial crisis (also a creation of the elite), Boyle states that peace and security can only be guaranteed if an “effective system of global governance is introduced” to replace nation states.
Boyle’s warning that only global governance run by by an enlightened elite can rescue the planet from turmoil is a familiar talking point put out by the establishment to hoodwink people into meekly accepting the end of national sovereignty as an inevitable process, a natural progression that they have no power to stop.
In reality, the move towards global governance is not natural at all, it has come as a consequence of elitists exploiting the crises they create to artificially push the globe towards a centralized and dictatorial political and economic system run by the few to the detriment of the many.
No better can this be illustrated than with the financial crisis, which the elite had foreknowledge of and positioned themselves to exploit in order to propose more regulation and global economic governance as the only solution.
Immediately before the credit crunch,globalist financial firms like Goldman Sachs were secretly betting on a U.S. housing market collapse while telling their clients to buy $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages. Likewise, central banks knew that a global collapse in the property market would herald the start of the worldwide economic downturn, but deliberately kept such information from the public.
Elitists like Boyle are indoctrinated by the establishment and the academic system into a consensus view that global governance will benefit humanity, when in reality by its very nature it is undemocratic and beneficial only to the tiny group of insiders who hold the reigns of power.
Global government does not represent an improvement on the world being governed by nation states, as Boyle claims, it is merely being promoted for the administrative convenience of an elite who wish to decimate individual freedoms, the democratic process in general, and set themselves up as autocratic overlords perched in their own Tower of Babel ruling over all the serfs below.
Global government is not being developed as some kind of utopian Star-Trek like structure of enlightened and benevolent rule, it is designed to be dictatorial, plutocratic and completely unrepresentative of the people’s interests.
This fact was admitted by one of Boyle’s peers, Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman, who in a 2008 piece called for a dictatorial global government to be installed to fight terrorism, climate change and solve the financial crisis.
Global government is by no means a new phenomenon proposed as a “solution” to current problems, it is the ultimate goal for a long-standing agenda that seeks to crush national sovereignty and freedom and replace it with a tyrannical new world order.
When international financier James Warburg told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, “We shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest,” he obviously wasn’t referring to some touchy-feely world government, he was characterizing it as a dictatorial, dominant force that would crush any opposition to its implementation.
The notion that global governance is both inevitable and a natural political progression for mankind needs to be countered at every turn. The growth of global governance has always been advanced by artificially contrived crises unleashed upon humanity by an arrogant and wicked elite who wish to see prosperity and the middle class destroyed by returning to the dark ages of serfs and peasants.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
IMF Head Calls For Huge Global Warming Slush Fund
International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn today called for a huge global warming slush fund to be established as an interim measure before carbon taxes are implemented in the name of preventing weather disasters related to alleged man-made climate change.
Speaking in Nairobi Kenya today, “Strauss-Kahn said the Fund is concerned about the huge amount of funding needed and the effect that will have on the global economy,” reports the Associated Press.
The IMF chief said that an outline paper would be published later this week which would detail how countries would adopt a quota system “which could bring in money faster than proposals to increase carbon taxes or other fundraising methods”.
Strauss-Kahn said that the measure was merely a stop-gap in anticipation of the longer term implementation of carbon taxes, that is a global levy on the very substance we exhale.
“We all know that (carbon taxes and other fundraising methods) will take time and we don’t have this time. So we need something which looks like an interim solution, which will bridge the gap between now and the time when those carbon taxes will be big enough to solve the problem,” Strauss-Kahn said. “And that is exactly what the IMF proposal is dealing with.”
Strauss-Kahn cited the failed Copenhagen “agreement” in claiming that $100 billion dollars a year would be needed to help poorer countries fight the effects of climate change, which as the Climategate scandal exposed, have been completely exaggerated and even fabricated by the IPCC in pursuit of a predetermined consensus.
However, one of the primary reasons behind the failure of Copenhagen was put down to the leak of the “Danish text,” which revealed how the IMF and the World Bank were using climate change as a smokescreen with which to hide their neo-colonial agenda.
As we reported at the time, the leaked text exposed how funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling debts that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.
Leaders of third world countries were horrified to discover that developed nations would take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions would further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.
Billionaire elitist George Soros subsequently told Copenhagen delegates how poorer nations would be forced to take on what he described as “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF.
The creation of revenue streams to bankroll the structure of global governance that will oversee the implementation a “green world order” will again be up for discussion at a series of new Copenhagen process negotiations set to take place in April, May and June.
As we highlighted last month, leaked policy documents reveal that the United Nations plans to create a “green world order” by 2012 which will be enforced by a structure of global governance and funded by a gargantuan $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries, as the globalists’ insidious plan to centralize power, crush sovereignty while devastating the economy is exposed once again.
Paul Joseph Watson
sursa: PrisonPlanet.com
Bill Gates Calls for Population Reduction
In a recent TED Talk, Bill Gates has put forward the theory that mankind can reach zero carbon emissions by reducing our population, services, energy and carbon output. And yes, he’s even suggested a trendy, yet totally absurd, equation to legitimatize his eugenicist viewpoint. All I can say is, “What a crackpot!” Maybe it’s because he hasn’t noticed the systematic fraud exposed in the climate-gate debacle or maybe it’s because the mathematics of his equation are so blatantly imbecilic but I can’t help myself from truncated laughter. This guy is a genius? Really?
First and foremost, the summation equation is immeasurably misleading. No one, and especially not a world renowned computer programmer, should make the mistake of multiplying the variables of a summation. And even if you could overlook that magnitude of an inaccuracy, the number of variables that lead to a reasonable projection of a true change in any chaotic system are far more varied and complex than the four presented by Mr. Gates’ second grade presentation. Yet in typical fashion one TED attendee, Laura Trice, stated, “Bills Gates reduced the environmental CO2 issue to a simple math equation I could understand.”
So, assuming you are among the lemurs that have bought into the CO2 bogeyman storyline (during a carbon starved period of history); you still must concede that anything times zero is zero and therefore Bill Gates, even if inadvertently, called for zero human population. And though one could try to fool themselves into believing that he wouldn’t call for the expansion of the depopulation agenda, you didn’t need to wait very long to hear that directly from his own mouth. Soon into his talk he states that the world’s population is rapidly heading toward a staggering 9 billion and that, “if we do a good job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services we could lower that by 10-15%.” Yes, you guessed it; Bill Gates is suggesting tried and tested Malthusian population manipulation to achieve the new world order’s nominal depopulation agenda.
He later states that if they can’t achieve the kind of carbon reduction necessary by their standards; then they will consider using current “geo-engineering” methods to change weather patterns and extend their timeline. But the ultimate fumble of the speech came when Gates was asked what he would say to “climate deniers”. After clumsily attempting to make a point for what seems like an eternity, Gates exclaims, “if we can make the alternatives cheaper then they won’t care anymore.” Well I for one disagree with Mr. Gates’ assertations. For one, reproductive health services is an obvious code phrase for sterilization and abortion services, as so cunningly detailed by Obama Science Czar John Holdren in his government eugenics handbook “Ecoscience”. And secondly, I refuse to take anyone serious that still considers CO2 emission standardization to be anything less than the introduction of a new highly mercenary financial exchange instrument.
However, in the typical fashion of a seasoned professional pitchman, Bill Gates does deliver one singular great point that struggles to lend credibility to all of the previously presented non-sense. The productive use of depleted uranium in a newly designed slow-burn reactor is an idea that has been long overdue. After the egregious use of DU on the battle fields of Iraq, it almost sounds like a fairytale to have the potential to steer the toxic psychosis permeated elite war mongers towards a use for DU that may actually benefit mankind. And once the perpetrators of similar War and State crimes (illegal wiretaps, illegal preemptive war, torture, etc) have been tried and sentenced; DU reactors are surly at the top of the to-do-list.
Stephen P. Fuller
sursa: Infowars.com
Victimele razboaielor politice
Cetatenii sunt de 20 de ani victimele luptelor pentru Putere dintre partidele politice. Obsesia guvernarii - a pastrarii sau a ajungerii la privilegiile conferite de aceasta - a transformat Romania intr-un camp de lupta electoral. Distanta dintre interesele alesilor si cele ale alegatorilor se mareste de la o zi la alta. Realitatea in care traiesc cei multi, napastuiti si ingrijorati de un viitor tot mai incert difera radical de cea in care se lafaie minoritarii de serviciu din politica postdecembrista. Anul 2010 se anunta unul dificil. Mai greu chiar decat cel precedent. Somajul continua sa se indrepte vertiginos spre doua cifre. Justitia se afla in asteptarea unui nou Raport dezamagitor de la Bruxelles, in care inexistenta reformei, coruptia galopanta si influentele politice din actul de judecata vor fi, din nou, aspru criticate.
Sistemul de Educatie este amenintat, la randul sau, cu un nou val de reforme care il au in prim-plan pe proaspatul ministru. Si in Sanatate situatia este una agonizanta, in conditiile unui deficit alarmant de personal si a unei subfinantari ce isi va pune amprenta si in acest an. Administratia publica merge mai departe, impinsa cu brutalitate de la spate de o clasa politica dornica sa isi propulseze non-valorile in fruntea miilor de institutii deconcentrate. Totul se negociaza. Totul are un pret. Totul este posibil in urma negocierilor (a se citi compromisuri) politice. Guvernantii mimeaza, din plin, solidaritatea cu o populatie grav afectata de o criza ce pare a nu se mai termina. Austeritatea razbate din Palatul Victoria doar prin declaratiile alesilor. Guvernantii, intr-o proportie uriasa, aceiasi de anul trecut, stiu ca migratia politica ii poate salva de la inevitabilele motiuni simple si de cenzura. Iar partidele din Opozitie sunt pline de profitori care au descoperit, brusc, divergente de opinie si o incompatibilitate evidenta cu formatiunile din care fac parte. Bancile incomode ale Opozitiei nu atrag, iar ispita includerii tale in angrenajul banos, chiar si pe perioada de criza al unei Puteri ce vrea sa acapereze totul, devine de nerefuzat. Iar guvernatii prind, astfel, tot mai mult tupeu, simtindu-se protejati in fata acuzelor Opozitiei. Se amagesc ca iluzoria majoritate parlamentara, formata din parlamentari cumparati la kilogram, ii protejeaza, automat, si in fata unei populatii dezamagite. Amanarea miscarilor sindicale a fost posibila doar in urma unui nou val de promisiuni lansat de la Palatul Victoria, promisiuni ce vor avea in curand un efect de bumerang asupra aceluiasi guvern iresponsabil. Amagirea populatiei, tehnica supravietuirii de pe o zi pe alta prin imprumuturi disperate si propaganda electorala inutila reprezinta o tactica sinucigasa pentru cei ce cred ca romanii vor accepta la nesfarsit sa fie mintiti si sfidati.
sursa: cronicaromana.ro
Lawmaker: Climate change just ruse to control population
Rep. Mike Noel, the Legislature’s chief climate-change skeptic, declared Thursday that global warming is a conspiracy to control world population.
The House Natural Resources Committee then approved a resolution that expresses the Utah Legislature’s belief that “climate alarmists’ carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures.”
The resolution, sent to the House on a 10-1 vote, would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to drop plans to regulate the pollution blamed for climate change “until a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”
“We’re at the breaking point,” said Rep. Kerry Gibson, the resolution’s sponsor, who warned that the supply of safe and affordable food is already threatened by over-regulation.
Eleven Brigham Young University scientists defended climate science in a point-by-point rebuttal to parts of the resolution and urged the panel in an e-mail to reject the measure.
“Even if all the political solutions proposed so far are flawed,” they said, “this does not justify politicians attacking the science that indicates there is almost certainly a serious problem.”
The Utah Farm Bureau, a strong backer of the resolution, pressed many of the same scientists, along with LDS Church-owned BYU, to apologize for comments they had made critical of a previous legislative climate discussion and the remarks of one witness who disputes humankind’s role in global warming.
“I would call on Brigham Young University and Summer Rupper to apologize for what they have said,” said Farm Bureau CEO Randy Parker, who assisted Gibson, an Ogden farmer, in presenting the measure.
Both BYU and one of the scientists involved indicated Thursday there won’t be an apology for comments regarding University of Alabama researcher Roy Spencer’s work.
“We attacked some of his positions,” said geochemist Barry Bickmore, who signed both BYU letters. “We didn’t attack him.”
BYU spokesman Michael Smart noted that the scientists who have written to the Legislature have said all along they do not represent the school’s views.
“The faculty have always been clear they are speaking for themselves and not for the university,” he said. “The university doesn’t take a position on this issue, so we don’t have any comment on it.”
Parker, a member of the 2007 Governor’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change, and Gibson told the committee that climate science was motivated by the chase for research dollars, that climatology suffers a “credibility crisis” and that the work of skeptical scientists is being squelched.
They also described devastating impacts on the economy and farmers if the EPA succeeds with proposed regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and if Congress enacts a “cap-and-tax” law.
“It would be crippling to the economy,” said Gibson. “What it comes down to is: Agriculture is being regulated and taxed to death under this kind of mentality.”
Parker said proposed policies would hit U.S. farmers and families hard, putting a $2,000 or greater burden on each family, trigger energy shortages and slash farm income by half. He also said the EPA’s “cow tax” would cost Utah’s farmers and ranchers nearly $104 million, although the agency insists the regulation would not apply to small businesses like farms.
Rep. Phil Riesen, D-Holladay, questioned Gibson about the “conspiracy” wording in the resolution. “A conspiracy?” he asked. “By whom? To what end?”
“I’m not sure we’ll ever know the depths of it,” said Gibson, adding that it was hard to separate the hype because “we only hear one side of the argument.”
Rep. Roger Barrus, R-Centerville, who supported the anti-regulation part of the resolution, called the wording “pretty inflammatory” and counter to the Legislature’s standards of civility.
But Noel defended the “conspiracy” wording, pointing to an out-of-print textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment , written in the 1970s by biologist Paul Ehr - -lich, Ehrlich’s wife, Anne, and physicist John Holdren about the potential hazards of unchecked population.
The Kanab Republican, referring to Holdren as the Obama administration’s “energy czar,” read from passages of the 1,000-plus-page tome about population-control alternatives that included abortion and forced sterilization. He did not share the authors’ conclusion: that voluntary population-limiting methods are “a far better choice.”
“Now, if you can’t see a connection [of a conspiracy] to that,” the legislator said, “you’re absolutely blind to what is going on. This is absolutely — in my mind, this is in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe.”
Judy Fahys
sursa: TheSaltLakeTribune
Mad Scientists Want To Simulate Volcanoes To Block Sun
Even as the very foundation of the global warming fraud collapses as a result of scandal after scandal, and the manufactured link between CO2 emissions and temperature increases is vehemently debunked, mad scientists with sympathetic allies in the White House are proposing to simulate volcanoes in order to block out the sun.
Despite the fact that Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, and a host of other mammoth, caught red-handed examples of global warming alarmists engaging in outright fraud to manufacture a link between CO2 emissions and climate change have been exposed over the last two months, geoengineering nuts are still insisting on the necessity of carrying out their own man-made climate change by loading the atmosphere with sulphuric particles in an effort to block the very source of all life on earth – the sun.
“A geoengineering project to block the sun by simulating volcanic eruptions would be 100 times cheaper than cutting greenhouse gas emissions, climate change scientists said,” reports the Telegraph.
“The environmental scientists, David Keith of the University of Calgary in Canada, Edward Parson of the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University, were writing an editorial in the journal, Nature.”
“They called for governments to establish a multimillion-pound fund for research into the simulated volcanoes and other solar-radiation management techniques for shielding the Earth against sunlight.”
No, this isn’t a script from V or some tacky alien invasion B movie – esteemed scientists are really proposing to treat the sun – without which all life on earth would perish – as a mortal enemy to the environment.
With no justification whatsoever, and with scant regard for the health consequences, these lunatics actually want to create artificial volcanoes in an attempt to produce global dimming.
No doubt the following benefits that are associated with exposure to sulphur will be enjoyed as an added bonus by the same kind of people who advocate genocidal measures of population reduction.
- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
– Disturbance of blood circulation
– Heart damage
– Effects on eyes and eyesight
– Reproductive failure
– Damage to immune systems
– Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
– Damage to liver and kidney functions
– Hearing defects
– Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
– Dermatological effects
– Suffocation and lung embolism
As we have previously highlighted, a prominent supporter of geoengineering proposals is none other than White House science czar John P. Holdren, a key Obama advisor who infamously co-authored a book in which he called for a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion, infanticide and mandatory sterilization, as well as poisoning the water supply.
In April last year, Holdren revealed that high-level talks had already taken place to explore the possibility of “geoengineering” the environment by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”.
“It’s got to be looked at,” Holdren was quoted as saying, “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” The AP also reported that Holdren said he had raised the concept in administration discussions.
But for some, simply launching gargantuan atmospheric experiments to block out the sun doesn’t go far enough. A new book staunchly advocated by none other than NASA’s James Hansen calls for cities to be razed to the ground, industrial civilization to be destroyed, and acts of sabotage and eco-terrorism in the name of halting whatever invented environmental catastrophe alarmists are threatening this week.
“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization,” writes author Keith Farnish, adding that “people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses”.
As we have repeatedly stressed, the innumerable scandals currently rocking the global warming establishment are eating away at whatever credibility the climate change authodoxy had left, but unless we follow through and weed out the systemized detritus that already infests every level of our society in the name of climate change, these sophisticated crackpots are just going to keep pushing ahead with their lunacy.
This starts with a wholesale rejection and noncompliance with any policy, regulation, or mandate instituted in the name of stopping the manufactured fraud that is man-made global warming.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Global Warming Fraud Collapses Amidst Deception And Scandal
The multi-billion dollar global warming fraud is truly beginning to crumble, with even vehement man-made climate change advocates like the BBC acknowledging that the credibility of the IPCC is shot.
“The bloggers are all over the UN IPCC 2007 report, the bible of global warming, which predicted all manner of dire outcomes for our planet unless we got a grip on rising temperatures — and it seems to be crumbling in some pretty significant areas,” writes the BBC’s Andrew Neil in an article entitled ‘The dam is cracking‘.
Climategate was merely the opening salvo in a series of seemingly never-ending scandals that have engulfed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last few weeks.
The first major blow came when the IPCC had to admit that their 2007 forecast that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035 was completely wrong. The absurd claim was first made by a little-known Indian scientist in an interview for an online magazine, invoked by the World Wildlife Fund, and then copied into the 2007 IPCC report with no investigation as to its accuracy.
In reality, even if IPCC estimates of global warming are proven correct, which is severely doubtful in light of their recent track record, the glaciers will be around for at least centuries longer.
“In fact, the IPCC’s 2007 report cites WWF documents as “evidence” at least another 15 times,” writes Andrew Bolt.
“Elsewhere it cites a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed paper from another activist body, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, as its sole proof that global warming could devastate African agriculture.”
It then emerged that the scientist who first made the claim, Syed Hasnain, is now employed by The Energy Research Institute – headed by IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri. Just two weeks ago TERI won up to $500,000 from the Carnegie Corporation to study Hasnain’s bogus claim.
Pachauri, portrayed as an authoritative scientists by some when in fact he is a railway engineer, only made himself look worse by initially attacking climate skeptics as “arrogant” and believers in “voodoo science” when the glaciers issue was highlighted. Pachauri later had to retract his words but still refuses to apologize. Pachauri’s reputation is in tatters and he is under intense pressure to resign.
The credibility of the IPCC was further devastated when it was revealed that their predictions on the Amazon rainforest were also lifted wholesale from WWF propaganda with no independent verification whatsoever.
Amidst all this scandal, new peer-reviewed studies have emerged to confirm the obvious – the world had ice age activity even when levels of greenhouse gases were four times higher than the level of our pre-industrial times.
Global warming is heading to the same dustbin of history as Y2K, SARS and swine flu – another manufactured scare peddled primarily to make vast profits for corrupt elitists at the expense of the general public. The entire fraud is collapsing under the weight of its own lies as new revelations of IPCC deception and bias emerge on an almost daily basis thanks to the sterling work of climate skeptics who have had their convictions vindicated.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
NASA Global Warming Alarmist Endorses Book That Calls For Mass Genocide
Prominent NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen has endorsed an eco-fascist book that calls for cities to be razed to the ground, industrial civilization to be destroyed and genocidal population reduction measures to be implemented in the name of preventing climate change.
Hansen, who was back in the news today commenting on a NASA press release that claims the last decade was the warmest on record, said that Keith Farnish, author of a new book called Time’s Up, is correct in calling for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.
Hansen is a key figure in the global warming movement, for it was his 1988 with testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore that really got the ball rolling for the elite in their mission to hijack the environmental movement and promote apocalyptic fears of climate change as a means of seizing absolute power over humanity.
Author Farnish “believes – as the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt does – that mankind is a blot on the landscape and that breeding (or for that matter, existence) should be discouraged,” writes James Delingpole.
“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization,” writes Farnish, adding that “people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses”.
Farnish echoes similar talking points to those featured in White House science czar John Holdren’s Ecoscience textbook, which called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.
Farnish explains his desire to see rampant population reduction in the name of saving the planet.
“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people,” he writes.
And how is the collapse of industrial civilization to be achieved? By indiscriminate acts of sabotage and eco-terrorism.
“Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage,” writes Farnish.
But surely the respected and authoritative individuals we have been told by the media to trust when it comes to the science behind global warming would rebuke such outlandish, deranged and extreme methods of addressing climate change?
“Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ’system’ is the problem,” wrote Dr. James Hansen on the Amazon website. “Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort.
It has also come to light that Hansen wasn’t even asked to comment on Farnish’s book, he freely volunteered his opinion. “Just to put the quote into context, it was indeed spontaneous from James and surprised me a little at first,” wrote author Farnish on the Yahoo Answers website.
“It’s an important thing to remember when we talk about AGW: many of the activist-scientists pushing it passionately want the earth to be getting hotter and it for it to be largely man’s fault. These watermelons certainly don’t want the opposite to be true, because then they wouldn’t have the excuse they so desperately need to destroy the capitalist system and take us all back to the agrarian age,” comments Delingpole.
The entire climate change takeover is being spearheaded by self-hating psychotics who want to impose a global one child policy in the name of curbing overpopulation. As we have vehemently proven, the overpopulation hype is a debunked myth with no basis in reality. The real reason global eugenicists want to implement such policies, along with taxing the life-giving gas carbon dioxide, is because it would give them absolute control over every single aspect of our lives – a control freak’s utopia.
The propagandistic method of depicting humans as the enemy is perfectly tailored to this agenda, because it elicits the response of making people call for their own kind to be regulated, controlled, and even killed under the contrived pretext of preventing an ecological apocalypse.
This approach was again evident in a recent United Nations sponsored poster campaign which depicted humans as evil horror movie monsters intent on slaughtering wildlife and killing the earth.
The global elite resolved to take this approach back in 1991 when the Club of Rome, a powerful globalist NGO committed to limiting growth and ushering in a post-industrial society, said in their report, The First Global Revolution, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Genocidal psychotics are now trying to obtain the power to carry out the kind of nihilistic blueprint for terror Farnish outlines in his book in pursuit of their “post-industrial society”. What makes it all the more galling is that these eco-fascists present their lunacy in such a reasonable and sober tone. In reality, although they try to characterize humanity as a virus upon the planet, the only real cancer upon the earth is their virulently neo-fascist doctrine of warped environmentalism and population control.
The only real threat to humanity’s survival is not climate change, which has naturally occurred for eons since the very incarnation of planet earth, but the insane, self-destructive and monstrous plans to “solve” the issue being proposed by eco-fascists like Farnish and endorsed by people in prominent positions of influence like Hansen.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Marea escrocherie a incalzirii globale
Marea escrocherie a încălzirii globale ‘ este un film documentar ce se opune consensului ştiinţific ce spune că încălzirea globală este “foarte probabil rezultatul unei creşteri observabile a concentraţiei de gaze cu efect de seră cauzate de om ‘. Filmul, efectuat de producătorul de televiziune britanic Martin Durkin, prezintă oameni de ştiinţă, economişti, politicieni, scriitori, şi alţii care sunt sceptici cu privire la teoria ştiinţifică a încălzirii globale antropogene. Materiale publicitare ale programului afirmă că încălzirea globală antropogenă este ‘o minciună’ şi ‘cea mai mare înşelătorie din timpurile moderne’. The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is “very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations”. The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. The programme’s publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is ‘a lie’ and ‘the biggest scam of modern times’.
sursa: lukasig.com
Human civilisation ‘will collapse’ unless greed culture is stopped, report warns
Human civilisation would “collapse” and efforts to tackle global warming will fail unless the world curbs its culture of greed and excessive consumerism, a report has warned.
The world’s population is burning through the planet’s resources at such a reckless rate – about 28 per cent more last year - it will eventually cause environmental havoc, said the Worldwatch Institute, a US think-tank.
In its annual State of the World 2010 report, it warned any gains from government action on climate change could be wiped out by the cult of consumption and greed unless changes in our lifestyle were made.
Consumerism had become a “powerful driver” for increasing demand for resources and consequent production of waste, with governments, including the British, too readily wanting to promoted it as necessary for job creation and economic well-being.
More than £2.8 trillion of stimulus packages had been poured into economies to pull the world out of the global recession, it found, with only a small amount into green measures.
But the think tank warned that without a “wholesale transformation” of cultural patterns the world would not be able to “prevent the collapse of human civilisation”.
The think tank found that over the past decade consumption of goods and services had risen by 28 per cent to $30.5 trillion (£19bn) - with the world digging up the equivalent of 112 Empire State Buildings of material every day.
The average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day, many US two year-olds can recognise the McDonald’s “Golden Archers” sign, although they cannot read the letter, and an average western family spends more on their pet than by someone trying to live in Bangladesh.
A cultural shift from consumption to valuing sustainable living was needed because government targets and new technology were not enough to rescue humanity from ecological and social threats.
Without action, humans faced problems including changing climates, obesity epidemics, declines in wildlife, loss of agricultural land and more production of hazardous waste.
Consumerism it said had “taken root in culture upon culture over the past half-century … (and) become a powerful driver of the inexorable increase in demand for resources and production of waste that marks our age”.
Erik Assadourian, the institute’s project director, said it was “no longer enough to change our light bulbs, we must change our very cultures”.
At current consumption rates, 200 square metres of solar panels a second and 24 wind turbines every hour were needed to be built to satisfy energy levels.
The think tank said it was not just the United States that was guilty of a culture of excess with other developing countries such as Brazil, India and China adopting greed as a success symbol.
China, one of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emissions producers, recently overtook the US as the world’s top car market.
“More than 6.8 billion human beings are now demanding ever greater quantities of material resources, decimating the world’s richest ecosystems, and dumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere each year,” the report said.
This number will only increase as people in the developing world aspire towards a Western-styled consumer lifestyle.
Mr Assadourian added: “Until we recognise that our environmental problems, from climate change to deforestation to species loss, are driven by unsustainable habits, we will not be able to solve the ecological crises that threaten to wash over civilisation.
“We’ve seen some encouraging efforts to combat the world’s climate crisis in the past few years.
“But making policy and technology changes while keeping cultures centred on consumerism and growth can only go so far.”
He said such measures such as banning incandescent light bulbs and steering children away from consumerism through toy libraries would help.
Andrew Hough
sursa: telegraph.co.uk
Summitul de la Copenhaga – o conferinţă unde fiecare a luptat să „sacrifice” cât mai puţin pentru „salvarea planetei”. Ce ar putea “câştiga” România de pe urma încălzirii globale
Prin preşedintele Traian Băsescu, România a făcut act de prezenţă, susţinând necondiţionat poziţia UE privind finalizarea unui “document politic extrem de constrângător pentru statele ONU” în privinţa reducerii emisiilor de dioxid de carbon.
“Suntem de acord că sunt necesare reduceri profunde ale emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră (…) cu o perspectivă de reducere de până la 50% până în 2050, comparativ cu 1990″ - acesta era obiectivul “generos” menţionat în varianta finală a unui aşa-numit “Acord de la Copenhaga”, citată de agenţiile Associated Press, Reuters şi cotidianul britanic The Guardian.
Cei 193 de şefi de stat şi de guvern prezenţi la Summitul ONU de la Copenhaga s-au arătat cu toţii de acord că temperatura planetei nu trebuie să crească mai mult cu 2 grade Celsius de acum într-o sută de ani. Însă, în ceea ce priveşte mecanismele precise de atingere a acestui obiectiv şi de constrângere a statelor pentru îndeplinirea obligaţiilor asumate, negocierile au eşuat.
“Nicio ţară nu va primi tot ce îşi doreşte”, a mărturisit, ieri, preşedintele Barack Obama - omul de care se legau speranţele că îşi va putea folosi puterea de convingere pentru a se ajunge la un acord.
Câtă vreme, potrivit preşedintelui Traian Băsescu, “noi suntem susţinători necondiţionaţi ai obiectivelor Comisiei Europene”, orice eşec al UE ar putea fi privit şi ca un eşec al României. Un “document politic extrem de constrângător pentru statele ONU”, după a descris preşedintele român ambiţia UE, la plecarea spre Copenhaga, nu a putut fi atins.
Pentru ca delegaţii la nivel înalt să accepte, totuşi, să semneze un document comun, din “Acordul de la Copenhaga” a fost eliminată referirea ca anul 2010 să fie termenul-limită pentru încheierea unui tratat constrângător. Or, înaintea etapei finale a negocierilor, purtată ieri, premierul britanic Gordon Brown considera că un termen-limită de şase luni este “maximum acceptabil”. În plus, de-a lungul ultimelor săptămâni, alţi lideri europeni calificau Summitul din Danemarca drept “o ultimă şansă” de a salva planeta de încălzirea globală.
Singura concesie pe care documentul o face liderilor UE, convinşi că fără limitatea emisiilor de dioxid de carbon (CO2) omenirea nu va putea evita un dezastru este promisiunea unei “revizuiri” a obiectivelor sale în 2016. Potrivit Reuters, proiectul final de acord nu conţinea un cuantum exact al reducerilor de CO2 pe care trebuie să şi-l asume ţările dezvoltate până în 2020.
Ce ar putea “câştiga” România de pe urma încălzirii globale
Numeroase studii, ale căror date au fost îndelung reluate în ultimele zile, conţin avertismente despre ceea ce fiecare ţară a lumii ar putea pierde din cauza creşterii temperaturii medii cu 2-5 grade Celsius, până la sfârşitul secolului. Nici România nu ar face excepţie de la fenomene precum avansarea deşerificării (din Oltenia până în Dobrogea şi sudul Moldovei), combinată cu înmulţirea zilelor secetoase şi a inundaţiilor.
De pildă, un studiu al Centrului reunit de cercetare al UE (JRC) plasează ţara noastră în zona “central-sudic-europeană”, alături de Austria, Cehia, Franţa, Ungaria şi Slovacia. În aceste state, pierderile economice puse pe seama încălzirii globale s-ar situa între 0,1 şi 0,6% din PIB. În ciuda acestor pierderi, mai multe zile călduroase ar aduce, celor şase state aminite, venituri suplimentare din turism care vor totaliza 10 miliarde euro.
Pe de altă parte, România poate câştiga circa 2,5 miliarde euro din vinderea părţilor din cota de dioxid de carbon la care i-a dat dreptul Protocolul de la Kyoto (1997), dar pe care nu a folosit-o. Suma a fost estimată de ministrul Economiei, Adriean Videanu, cu prilejul Summit-ului Iniţiativei Central Europene de la Bucureşti, din noiembrie 2009.
Românii, “vinovaţi” pentru 0,4% din emisiile mondiale de dioxid de carbon
“Amprenta carbonică” a României reprezintă 0,4% din totalul emisiilor de dioxid de carbon - gaz inofensiv, în lipsa căruia plantele nu pot creşte, dar pe care ONU, UE, alte organizaţii internaţionale şi principalele puteri industriale ale lumii (G-20) îl consideră vinovat, în baza unor pretenţii ştiinţifice departe de a fi unanime, pentru creşterea temperaturii atmosferei.
Cu 98,480 de tone de CO2, ţara noastră ocupa locul 37 (din 210 state şi teritorii), în clasamentul “Millennium Development Goals indicators”, realizat de Divizia statistică a ONU cu date colectate în 2006.
Cota României este infimă în comparaţie cu cea a Chinei (locul 1), care degajă 21,5% din cantitatea de CO2 nou apărută în atmosferă în fiecare an, respectiv SUA (locul 2) - 20% şi totalul celor 27 de state UE (locul 3) - 13,8%.
INFO: 50% reprezintă reducerea emisiilor cu efect de seră până în 2050, faţă de nivelul anului 1990, care era cuprinsă în ultimele variante ale unui aşa-numit “Acord de la Copenhaga”, deşi documentul se arăta lipsit de măsuri de “constrângere” a statelor pentru atingerea acestei ambiţii.
Bogdan MUNTEANU
sursa: gandul.info
vizitatori unici
Primeste articolele direct in mail.
