Madder and madder and madder and madder and madder...
I half hope he does it, so it will lay bare the absolute disjuncture between the UN & its auxiliaries -- including the little army of little green ideologues -- and reality.
"They hope that an emergency declaration would result in resources and technical expertise being rushed to countries most at risk from global heating...".
The UN has a poor track record in this regard.
People want futures for them & their children, not eco-warrior colonialists.
"Hello, we are from the UN, and we have brought solar panels."
"We don't want your solar panels. We wanted to build a proper power station."
"Well, you can't have one. It's bad for the planet."
"Ok, then get back on your helicopter and fuck off."
'...the activists call on the secretary-general and other UN agencies to “mobilise a UN comprehensive response to the climate emergency". They also urged them to appoint a crisis management team to "oversee immediate and comprehensive global action on climate"'.
The activists want the UN to disintegrate.
So do I.
The article is quite an eye-opener. It really shows how the UN has sought to cement itself using covid19, and how the sense of perpetual crisis is embedded in the green ideological outlook.
I.e. there is no positive case for global political institutions.
The paradox is that the world has never been so safe from communicable diseases, poverty and extreme weather, yet the ideologies that congeal around the UN have the notion of unprecedented global crises at the centre of their understanding.
They are forced to whip themselves up into a frenzy with stories that owe less and less to reality.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
They are going to get madder and weirder and more and more dangerous until society choses to confront environmentalism, or green ideology causes a deep political, social, and economic crisis.
What do I mean by crisis?
Listen to the protesters. They're demanding not just Net Zero, but actual zero by 2030.
There is no rational perspective being brought to UNFCCC negotiations, and even less to green ideology. It is, so to speak, a positive-feedback mechanism.
This isn't a critique of policy that either understands environmentalism, draws away from its excesses, understands its rise, or proposes a meaningful energy policy. He'd be quite happy with NetZero if it hadn't created an opportunity for him.
Since he calls it 'net stupid'... "Hydrogen" is a stupid idea. As stupid as anything in Net Zero, which indeed it is a part of. SMRs are all well and good, but hardly answer the problem for the next decade or so.
"We will invest in brilliant shiny new world-class super-duper fab technology".
The green movement is lubricated by and built on sleaze.
Even the party opposite the likes of Yeo, Gummer and Goldsmith is a party of red princes, blobbers and scandals. And between them, Huhne, and Davey, who got a nice job with the PR firm managing the account for "the most expensive power station in the world" that he commissioned.
And that's what the climate thing is about. Its players live entirely virtual existences, remote and disconnected from the lives lived by billions of ordinary people.
Why does Ed want to be the climate champion so badly? Why does he think he has a handle on what the world needs?
Because he's a complete stranger to democracy. He's from a class of people who believe society is theirs to manage and engineer, no matter what people think.
He grew up in wealth, but with the belief that he was good for the world and could make it a better place without requiring the consent of those whose lives his ideas would affect. It's a left-wing version of Divine Right.