Commentary
In what has been billed as a last effort to save the planet, thousands of politicians, journalists, and all manner of climate experts are due to fly to Glasgow, Scotland, next month for the United Nations’
COP26 climate summit, but is this a lot of hot air about a lot of hot air?
Certainly not, according to a
global survey of young people carried out by Bath University that claims three-quarters think the future is frightening and more than half (56 percent) believe humanity is doomed.
“Governments need to listen to the science and not pathologize young people who feel anxious,” lead author Caroline Hickman told BBC News.
Pathologize means to “regard or treat as psychologically abnormal,” but the evidence points to the contrary. Most governments are taking this issue very seriously, even pathologically so, as not one of them dares question the scary claims of the climate scientists.
When President Joe Biden last met with Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the White House, they announced a new bilateral
Strategic Energy Dialogue to “rally all countries to strengthen their climate ambitions.” The chance to be the good guys saving the planet provides a comforting and tempting respite for leaders who are both facing strong domestic criticism.
For Biden, that includes the economy, Afghanistan, and growing COVID mandate resistance, plus the southern border crisis. The UK too is facing its own surge of thousands of illegal
immigrants who have chosen to escape the horrors of France and the EU for a better life in Brexit Britain.
Agreeing on a trade deal between their two nations has also eluded them. For a post-Brexit UK prime minister looking to fill the EU trade hole, this should be his No. 1 priority, but
Nigel Farage claims that Johnson blew the “
phenomenal trade deal” that President Donald Trump offered him and instead foolishly held out for the pro-EU and pro-Irish Biden administration.
Biden and Johnson have plenty that divides them: Biden leads an increasingly leftward-leaning party while Johnson leads the party of Churchill and Thatcher—although he has done his best to make it increasingly leftward-leaning. Biden prefers European nations to be part of the EU, while Johnson led the get-Britain-out side. And, during the recent chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, Biden refused to take the British prime minister’s phone calls for
36 hours.
What the two leaders do agree on is the need to defeat climate change, whatever the cost.
In Biden’s
first speech to the U.N., he was able to dodge talking about his recent military debacle by reaffirming his commitment to fighting climate change. To back up his decision to rejoin the Paris Accord, he said: “The extreme weather events that we have seen in every part of the world—and you all know it and feel it—represent what the secretary-general has rightly called code red for humanity.”
To the delegates’ delight, he added: “We’re back at the table in international forums,” and U.S. taxpayers will once again take on the lion’s share of the cost.
The U.N.’s
COP26 climate summit in Glasgow is next up in the quest to save the planet. Indeed, the veteran British TV presenter, Sir David Attenborough, claims that this will be “the last opportunity to make the necessary change” to save the planet. Offering some hope,
he added, “If we bring emissions down with sufficient vigor, we may yet avoid the tipping points that will make runaway climate change unstoppable.”
The beauty of this premise is that it can’t be proven wrong. Trillions of dollars are being spent and the climate will remain as normal as it ever can be, but will the outcome be due to the expenditure? The burden of proof should be on those making the claim, and yet what is usually offered up are very selective weather observations.
Extreme weather isn’t new. The U.S. heat wave in the
summer of 1936 set records that remain in 13 states and led to 5,000 deaths. The spring of that year also saw tornadoes strike many areas and one in Tupelo, Mississippi, killed more than 200 people. Prior to that, the month of February was the pinnacle of one of the coldest winters in U.S. history.
For those who believe in anthropogenic climate change, consider the role of China. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), China produces the most CO2 in the world at 30 percent—twice the amount America does. Yet under the
Paris Accord, it has been given until 2030 to start imposing limits on its fossil fuel production, during which time it will have added at least 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces.
Without mentioning China by name, Biden explained how U.S. taxpayers will also pay for the alleged damage caused by its huge emissions.
He said: “In April, I announced the United States will double our public international financing to help developing nations tackle the climate crisis. And today, I’m proud to announce that we'll work with the Congress to double that number again, including for adaptation efforts.”
Johnson claims that climate change represents one of the “gravest threats to global peace and security.” Although the UK produces just 1 percent of global emissions, he is willing to borrow enormous sums from China to pay to reduce it, as his predecessors David Cameron and Theresa May did to pay for the UK’s first low-carbon, high-cost nuclear power station,
Hinkley Point C.
It seems to matter not a jot to them or the entire climate change lobby how much CO2 China will have produced in making the money they need to borrow to fight climate change. Or that a report by
Deutsche Bank concluded that reducing emissions may require “some kind of eco-dictatorship,” which will lead to “massive political resistance” as “prosperity and employment are likely to suffer considerably.”
Maybe governments figure that as there was so little resistance to the COVID lockdowns, why not just keep going?
In 1775, Dr. Samuel Johnson proclaimed, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” but has climate change become the new hiding place for today’s politicians?
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
