Globalists are pushing the world to reduce carbon emissions and strive toward a “net zero” standard. It’s well-known this standard is impossible to meet, but that hasn’t detracted from their demands to spend upwards of $75 trillion to achieve this unachievable goal.
Ironically, the “greenest” solutions offered to achieve net zero are often the most damaging to the environment, the same environment these elites supposedly are keen to protect.
Consider wind turbines. Turbines are horrible inventions. Aside from the fact that they will never produce enough power to offset the costs of erecting them, they kill birds (including endangered species), bats, insects (and whales, if they’re offshore), are made with materials that can’t be recycled and end up in landfills, are subject to breaking down (often within a year of installation) or collapsing, leak oil, are noisy, and use batteries made from lithium mined under extraordinarily toxic conditions. (Plus – big reveal – they’re kinda useless if there’s no wind.) In short, turbines are the poster boy of hypocritical “green” solutions being forced upon us.
Above all, windmills destroy wildlife habitats. Scotland chopped down 16 million trees to erect wind farms. Australia’s Queensland is facing massive deforestation of virgin land for the same reason. This is “green”?
Solar farms are equally destructive: toxic to manufacture, gobbling up vast amounts of land, easily smashed by hail, frying birds out of the air, and they’re non-recyclable to boot. And don’t even get me started on electric vehicles, which are inefficient, dangerous and (if mandated) will put such a strain on the power grid as to almost guarantee its collapse.
Nonetheless, globalists are pushing this unattainable ideal. And the searing hypocrisy of the elites striving to impose these net-zero standards knows no bounds. Almost every one of them dashes around the planet in a private jet (usually to climate conferences) while slamming air travel for the peons as anti-green. According to The Times, “University researchers have been branded ‘hypocrites’ for condemning air travel as bad for the planet but then flying to conferences anyway. … ‘There is a level of hypocrisy: academics know that flying is bad for the environment,’ said Professor Jonas De Vos of UCL, the lead author of the study. ‘But still, we often fly to international conferences, often to [make the argument] that society should be more sustainable.'”
From sociopolitical commentary to romance writing! Patrice Lewis branches into the world of Amish inspirational fiction. These clean romances are wholesome enough for Grandma to read. Check out Patrice’s available titles.
The opening paragraph of a City Journal article entitled “Green Grifters” says it well: “The latest global climate conference opened Monday in Azerbaijan. The timing is excellent. Any doubt regarding the wisdom of the next Trump administration’s likely pullout from such meetings should be dispelled by the conference photos alone. Here are tens of thousands of well fed, well-dressed members of the global elite – activists, employees of lavishly funded NGOs, armies of government bureaucrats, hundreds of heads of state – who have all travelled via jet and private plane to this remote corner of the Earth and who expect that every minute of their day will be supported by abundant, magically available energy.
“None has sacrificed a single personal comfort to save the planet. They assume that their smartphones will draw on an invisible web of transmitters and that they will be able to search the internet and run AI queries at will, notwithstanding that doing so requires voracious energy use from a growing archipelago of server farms. They expect their PowerPoints to be well lit and their conference and hotel rooms to be heated or air conditioned as needed. They’re never without their bottled water, which is carried thousands of miles by carbon-emitting trucks and planes and kept sterile by plastic containers whose manufacture requires petrochemicals and plenty of energy. They do not wait on the sun to shine or the wind to blow to light their rooms, run their elevators, or power up their devices; they want energy now and without interruption.”
These elites are least likely to follow their own recommendations. John Kerry’s lavish lifestyle and private jet travel is the most-often cited example, but he’s by no means alone. The Hollywood director who helps bankroll Just Stop Oil has an eight-bedroom holiday home 5,000 miles away in Ireland he jets off to “when the going gets tough.” Bill Gates pays $30,000 per MONTH to power his home (I calculated it would take our family 25 YEARS to reach that same level of power usage) and is considered to have the No. 1 carbon footprint of all celebrity climate activists (and without irony penned an oeuvre entitled “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need“). And on and on it goes.
And that, in a nutshell, is what ticks me off about these net-zero demands: Those pushing it refuse to acknowledge their own hypocrisy in the matter, and deny the astounding amount of environmental damage they’re supporting in the process.
But, as should be abundantly clear by now, the issue is never the issue. As Chris Talgo put it in American Thinker, “[W]hy is the U.N. so gung-ho about net zero? Perhaps the answer is money. … If not money, maybe the U.N. is seeking more power. From time immemorial, bureaucrats have sought to micromanage and centrally plan. Net zero is arguably the most ambitious power grab in world history, considering it would completely transform entire economies, societies, and cultures.”
The irony, of course, is the more hypocritical the elites behave regarding their plans to “save” the planet, the more the masses aren’t listening. “When climate activists are accused of hypocrisy, it is less a problem for the hypocrites themselves than a problem for the cause of climate advocacy,” noted Bennet Francis in The Conversation. “There is something distinctly objectionable about using your authority to influence the behavior of others, while refusing to submit yourself to the same principles.”
To counteract this logical conclusion, the elites are happy to stifle “disinformation” and force the masses to comply with their rigid requirements.
The Labor chairman of the U.K. Parliament’s energy committee has said net-zero targets will “absolutely” force people to change their lives. “For net-zero policies to work, if they are even capable of working, they will have to be ubiquitous,” notes Guy de la Bédoyère in the Daily Skeptic. “For them to be ubiquitous means enforcement everywhere regardless of their efficiency or reliability, and if necessary, at the point of a gun. What will we do with the countries that place national energy interests their chief priority and won’t play ball? Go to war with them?”
But the globalists are impervious to logic, reason and facts. All they care about is power, money and control. They will never give up their luxurious lifestyles in the name of saving the planet. Bank on it.
