The West’s headlong rush to jettison fossil fuels and hit ‘Net Zero’ carbon dioxide emissions is impoverishing us while enriching China, which is ramping up its coal-fired industry to sell us all the ‘green’ technology, says Bjorn Lomborg in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:
Starting in the 1990s, climate change has become a fixation for rich country politicians and elites. It emerged as the world had just seen the end of the Cold War. There was relative peace and trust across the world, broad economic growth and swift progress being made against poverty. In the capitals of Europe in particular, it felt like most of the planet’s big problems were fixed, so climate change was the final frontier.
These proponents of climate action advocated with relish the goal of ending reliance on the very fossil fuels that had powered two centuries of astonishing growth. Sure, this would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, but there would always be more growth.
What a naïve, narrow-minded world view. Time has not been kind to the foolish idea that climate change was humanity’s sole remaining problem – or that the planet would unite to solve it. Geopolitics and economics mean a rapid global transition from fossil fuels is impossible.
As has long been clear for many, the majority of the world never shared this myopic focus on climate change. Despite immense progress, in some countries life remains a battle against poverty, hunger and disease. In many more countries including India, the top priority is to create more jobs and life-changing growth and development. Outside the most advanced economies, climate change has understandably always been a relatively low voter priority.
Leaders from Europe and the United States talk up “Net Zero” as though it has global support. But this unity is quickly revealed as a mirage. For one thing, the destabilising axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea are not about to support Western efforts to solve climate change. Indeed, according to McKinsey, achieving the Net Zero target would require Russian climate policies costing $273 billion every year – around three-times what Russia spent on its military last year. That won’t happen.
The geopolitical challenges run even deeper. China’s growth has relied on burning ever more coal. It is the world’s preeminent greenhouse gas emitter, with the largest increase of any nation last year. Renewable energy made 40% of China’s primary energy in 1971, reducing to 7% by 2011 as it ramped up coal use. Since then, renewables have inched up to 10%. Strong climate action could cost China nearly a trillion dollars annually, hurting its journey toward becoming a rich nation.
The reality is that most of the world – including powerhouse India and emerging economies – will continue to focus on becoming richer, often with fossil fuels. Russia and its ilk will ignore the fixation on climate change altogether. And China will make money from selling the West solar panels and electric cars, while only modestly curbing its own emissions.
As rich countries irresponsibly attempt to export the cost of climate policy to poor countries through carbon adjustment taxes, they will drive a further wedge into an already fractured world.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It wouldn’t matter if it relied on viewership to fund itself. It would just die off quite quickly as people stopped watching and listening to their garbage.
The problem is that the state takes money from all of us to produce all the propaganda.
it’s like being forced to fund your enemy.
I don’t pay it, Starmer will just make the TV licence an internet tax. Mark my words.
This has already been done in Germany. The system there is a little different. You don’t need to get license to watch TV but a license is required for owning a device which could be used to watch TV or receive radio transmissions of public broadcasters. Without anyone asking for that, the German public broadcasters all started to offer internet streaming services and hence, turned everyone with a device which could access anything on the internet into a forcibly recruited subscriber.
Yes, like the “Devshirme” tribute of Balkan Christian children demanded by the Ottoman Turks for 300 years, or the “Jizya Tax” demanded of all infidels.
So candidates who are “dismissive or derisory of diversity and inclusion” will be excluded, thus making the BBC less diverse!
Doublethink is strong with these people. Orwell knew what he was talking about.
Candidates should test the BBC on their commitment to equity by demanding the same salary as Gary Lineker.
That wouldn’t be fair – they would be doing ten times more work than the crisp salesman.
The short answer to this question (“explain what …”) is “Nothing”. Both are umbrella terms without any real meaning.
And that’s why you’re not BBC material. Which, in many ways, is not at all insulting. Quite the opposite.
Diversity = Less White People. ——–So you will be employed by the BBC if you approve of that. Do the BBC think that all white people are oppressors, and all black people are oppressed? Do they then believe that these people should receive preferential treatment? ——-Here are a couple of BBC headlines “Inside the mind of White America”—-“Elderly White men block change.”.——The Cultural Marxists at the BBC like to dive us up into different groups (1) Black or White (2) Muslim or Christian (3) Straight or LGBT (4) Oppressors and Oppressed. ——–The name of the game is “Intolerance” in the name of “Tolerance”———The “Dying Breed” white male has to go.
Stopping racism with racism. Keeping people out in the name of inclusion. Making sure everyone looks the same to ensure diversity. Giving people priority to ensure equality. Orwell wouldn’t know whether he should be horrified or proud that he called it.
As diverse intellectually as the Hitler youth leadership.
“explain what diversity and inclusion means to you …..’
So if you say something like – ‘it means no white people, especially no white men, plus the promotion of biologically inaccurate labelling instead of merit or ability for hiring purposes, to meet DEI criteria and ESG scores’ – will that get you the job?
“will that get you the job?”
No. Shortlist possibly.
This is why I call this a viral ideology. Once it infiltrates a company, it completely takes over. We hire people in good faith because we believe they are the best qualified candidates to do the job. And then they turn around and replace all the people around them with their own. And before you know it you’re being kicked out cause you’re no longer adequate. This is happening in organizations and governments across the board. And it is our fault that we allowed such a hateful and hostile ideology to take hold. Now there’s no purging it. The people that should do the purging have already been replaced. They’re now protected by law. I don’t see any way out of this other than convincing a majority of the population to fight back against this, to all demand of their employers to cleanse this virus from their HR departments. But we’re a decade away from that. By the time everyone catches on, it might be too late.
Other observation about diversity: The concept is inherently anti-democratic because it maintains that qualification for public offices and similar posts ought to depend on people’s pedigree.
Well here’s some people who are definitely dismissive of ”diversity”. Or at least in the Clown World context. I can’t believe they got fined 18,000 euros for stating a fact. There should be a law against this, but when the judiciary are epic woketards who act like they’d be better off banged up in a nut house due to being a liability to rational and sane folk then you’ve got no chance.
”Bayer Leverkusen has been fined €18,000 by the German Football Association’s (DFB) sports court after its supporters unfurled a banner that stated there are only two genders — a move deemed to be discriminatory against the LGBT community.
The Bundesliga club was indicted by the DFB for “discriminatory, unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of its supporters” for the incident that occurred during the team’s away match against Werder Bremen on Nov. 25 last year.
A huge banner unrolled by fans displayed the slogan, “There are many styles of music but only two genders.”
The financial penalty was imposed in a ruling by a single judge who ruled that €6,000 of the fine could be used to fund “preventative measures against discrimination.”
The club and the DFB have agreed to the judgment, which is now legally binding.
Julian Reichelt, the former editor of Germany’s largest tabloid Bild, slammed the judgment and claimed the banner “simply states the basic biological fact of our existence.”
“The spirit of our institutions is being eaten away by an ideological virus,” he added.
Conservative commentator Anabel Schunke said the judgment was indicative of Germany entering “peak madhouse.”
https://rmx.news/germany/there-are-only-two-genders-bayer-leverkusen-fined-e18000-for-discriminatory-supporters-banner/
There are actually three genders in German but Germans still have only two sexes (the German term for both gender and sex is Geschlecht, though).
Apart from that: Professional football is notoriously corrupt. And the corresponding institutions have long since been bought by the usual suspects. Hence, that’s not an indication of Germany entering peek mental asylum, it just confirms that the multinational companies sponsoring football via open advertising and hidden direct payments have the power to punish people for making public statements their executives consider disagreeable.
“The BBC is not a welcoming place for those with conservative opinions.”
That is very interesting, because I read somewhere years ago that US medical schools were quietly ensuring that no applicants with “conservative” views would ever be accepted, regardless of their abilities. Only applicants demonstrating left-wing views were allowed to become practicing physicians. I wonder if the same sinister vetting system is being used in UK and other western medical schools.