Media and government reports still say we are staring into the abyss because carbon emissions are too high. But have they ever though we would have to shut down all economic activity in the developed world to change things.
Shortly after Germany announced its Politically Correct Thought Police (Anti Success Squad) have succeeded in finding a way to wreck Europe’s last solvent large economy and reduce the only large nation in the EU to still be in credit at the bank to the kind of penury being experienced by the economic no hoper PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain we hear that despite all the efforts of the green lobby and the global governance New World Order to bully us into going green, emissions are in fact increasing.
Despite all the billions of dollars, euros and pounds invested in crackpot schemes to turn <del>lead into gold</del> carbon into fertiliser or thrown away on <del>jollies to exclusive resorts</del> urgent summit conferences for scientists and politicians to discuss climate change we hear that according to the <del>crooks and liars</del> who warned of the carbon apocalypse, things are getting worse.
In spite of efforts to reduce emission <del>by outsourcing carbon intensive manufacturing processes to China and the developing world</del> introducing carbon caps and emissions trading schemes, we are getting nowhere.
Even the worst economic slump since the 1930s with the accompanying reduction of business activity has failed to curb rising emissions.
According to climate scientists this is undermining any hope of keeping global warming to what they say are safe levels. As usual the scientific consensus is cited to suppress diverse opinions even though it has been shown beyond doubt there is no scientific consensus.
All those scientists not in the pay of governments seeking to raise new taxes or corporations that stand to profit enormously from carbon trading, wind turbine manufacture, carbon capture, solar panels and other unlikely technologies have questioned the idea that climate change is caused by carbon emissions alone.
Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to as yet unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the benchmark for emissions data.
This rise, the report states, means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for “potentially levels of dangerous climate change” – is likely to be just a Utopian pipe dream. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions. Don’t you just love that “potentially,” the fact s nobody knows what will happen
Professor Stern of The London School Of Economics commented: “Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.”
The IEA (International Energy Agency) has calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging effects of global warming, annual fossil fuel emissions should be no more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year’s emissions rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to hiot targets set by <del> massive junkets in holiday resorts</del> climate conferences.
In spite of all these prophecies of disaster and doomsday scenarios the science lobby scream for more research and development to introduce more technology and more heat dependent industrial processes such as water recycling while economists and politicians scream for more consumption to fuel economic growth.
I have commented many times on the contradictory nature of a global economic model based on infinite growth in a world of finite resources.
Anybody with half a brain cell should be able to see reducing carbon and maintaining growth are incompatible goals.