Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  The current options for renewable sources are hydro electric, solar, wave (tidal) and wind power. Burning biomass is also called renewable though it produces more Co2 emissions [29] than coal. The country leading the renewable energy revolution in Europe is Germany. With its Energiewende (Energy Transition) policy initiative Germany has largely replaced its nuclear generating capacity with wind power and, to a lesser extent, solar energy.

  During the dead of winter, when the German people need energy the most, wind power only works when it is windy, which often it isn't, and solar barely works at all or not at all when the panels are covered in snow. Energy grid instability is an increasing problem in Germany [30]. This winter (early 2021) German national broadcaster RBB reported that Germany's energy suppliers were running at full capacity with the coal fired power plant in Lausitz straining under the demand of Berlin's power requirements. With no spare capacity they were on the brink of disaster.

  Harald Schwarz, professor of power distribution at the University of Cottbus, told RBB that he was very sceptical of Energiewende as it suggested to him that the gap between supply and demand would widen dangerously. He said that the reality of energy supply had been "totally neglected" by policy makers and that Germany would be forced to rely upon energy imports from nuclear powered France, Polish coal producers and Russian natural gas suppliers. Highlighting the Energiewende folly he added:

  "With this supply of wind and photovoltaic energy, it’s between 0 and 2 or 3 percent – that is de facto zero.. We have days, weeks, in the year where we have neither wind nor PV.. These are things, I must say, that have been physically established and known for centuries, and we’ve simply totally neglected this during the green energies discussion.”

  The RBB report was censored by the GPPP in order to protect their SDG deception. Deutsche Bank are certainly aware of the issues raised by Professor Schwartz. They published an article [31] in November 2020 where their senior analyst, Eric Heymann, outlined the crux of the problem in detail:

  "The latest Sustainable Development Scenario of the International Energy Agency.. expects renewable energy sources to have a share of 35% in total energy consumption.. even in this optimistic scenario, renewable energies are far away from being the main pillar of global energy supply.. The impact of the current climate policy on people’s everyday lives is still quite abstract.. Climate policy comes in the form of higher taxes and fees on energy... We take key consumption decisions.. how we heat our homes, how many electronic devices we have.. If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behaviour in all these areas of life.. A major turnaround in climate policy will certainly produce losers among both households and corporates. In addition, prosperity and employment are likely to suffer considerably."

  Much like the Earth Charter that inspired them, the UN's Agenda 21 and 2030 SDGs are replete with all the warm words and reassurances that propagandists like to use. SDGs will supposedly deliver a world free of poverty, hunger and disease. They are said to be a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. Who could ever disagree with these humanitarian goals? Anyone who does can thus be ostracised for questioning the dangerous insanity of the GPPP's sustainable development goals.

  The SDGs are newspeak. It is clear from the research of the Royal Society and PwC, the statements from the BoE, the analysis of academics like Professor Shwartz and many others that the model of sustainability we are expected to follow has not been developed with humanity in mind. There is no risk assessment which assesses the human cost of abandoning fossil fuels without having anything (other than nuclear power) even remotely capable of replacing them.

  If we do, as suggested by our great leaders, social chaos and unrest are assured. This is undoubtedly why Deutsche Bank asked:

  "There are no adequate cost-effective technologies yet to allow us to maintain our living standards in a carbon-neutral way. That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behaviour. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably.. to what extent may we be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality?"

  The eco-dictatorship will be the technocracy we are currently hurtling towards thanks to the pseudopandemic. Carbon pricing (trading) will certainly be one of the nudges used to force us to accept this tyranny but biosecurity will be the primary means of controlling our behaviour.

  Billions across the world, convinced by the scientific consensus on climate change, are already demanding that we commit ourselves to the new net zero, carbon neutral economy. If we follow the edicts of the GPPP our future does not look good. To illustrate the point we can look at the proposals for sustainable farming.

  We have just experienced the collapse of global trade and the disruption of supply chains. Early research showed that the first lockdown quadrupled the UK demand for emergency food relief [32]. Unemployment, household debt and weaknesses in the state benefits system was a major driver of food insecurity throughout the pseudopandemic.

  In the UK we are currently capable of producing about 55% of the food we consume [33] and are heavily reliant upon food imports for our survival. Our dependence is higher still, as we export much of the food we produce. Following the shortages we have already seen in many supermarkets during the pseudopandemic, rather than aim to strengthen our ability to feed ourselves the UK State franchise approach to sustainable farming is seemingly to reduce food production even further in favour of green spaces.

  The Agriculture Act 2020 created the Environmental Land Management Scheme [34] (ELMS). Under this sustainability plan, land owners will receive subsidies for producing what the Act defines as public goods. Given the mounting food insecurity you might imagine that this meant food. Unfortunately, sustainable public goods are better air and water quality, thriving ecosystems, soil quality and any measures taken to mitigate against modelled predictions of the projected environmental hazards caused by potential climate change.

  ELMS will be allocated using the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS). BPS is paid out on a scale dependent upon the size of the farm. The UK State franchise plan for sustainable farming is to pay the agricultural sector to produce less food.

  Every single sustainable policy and initiative, originating at the global level and then filtering down through the State franchise system to the local level, consistently points towards a reduction in demand. Sustainable reforms to employment, energy, economic and farming policy all lead to the same conclusion: a smaller human population.

  Speaking to the Association of British Insurers in February 2021, the head of the UK Environmental Agency Sir James Bevan spoke about how terrible climate change is predicted to be. He outlined what he claimed were Reasonable Worst Case (RWC) scenarios. Based upon these models the picture he painted was terrifying:

  "The RWC for climate sounds like this: Much higher sea levels will take out most of the world’s cities, displace millions, and make much of the rest of our land surface uninhabitable or unusable. Much more extreme weather will kill more people through drought, flooding, wildfires and heatwaves than most wars have. The net effects will collapse ecosystems, slash crop yields, take out the infrastructure that our civilisation depends on, and destroy the basis of the modern economy and modern society."

  Faced with the climate Armageddon, promoted by the GPPP and their MSM partners for at least the last 50 years, it is not surprising that the vast majority believe population reduction is necessary. Yet these RWC scenarios are not facts. They are not based upon empirical evidence, statistical analysis or observed phenomena. Like the pseudopandemic they are based upon computer models and only describe what might be, not what is.

  Despite all the plant food we have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution we have yet to see any of these nightmare predictions materialise. The Polar Bears are not disappearing [35]; the increase in Co2 levels have not c
orresponded to an increase in extreme weather events, which were more frequent in the first half of the 20th century than they are today [36]; there is no increasing trend [37] in landfall hurricanes and the total area of wild fire destruction has not increased [38].

  Of course we shouldn't ignore climate change. NOAA's confirmation that we are entering a grand solar minimum [39] and that global temperatures will fall is something we will have to deal with. It also guarantees that State franchise commitment to keep global temperature rises below 1.5 degrees Celsius (set at the COP 21 summit Paris Agreement in 2015) will be achieved no matter what they do. Nor should we ignore the fact that the eugenics obsessed parasite class are not only behind the climate change alarmism, the sustainable solutions they propose are all, coincidentally, predicated upon population reduction.

  Whenever anyone points this out the inclusive communitarian riposte is always that it is ridiculous to suggest those who profit most from the fossil fuel based economy would be behind carbon neutrality. However, carbon neutral doesn't mean big polluters have to significantly cut their Co2 emissions. They can offset them using carbon or emission trading.

  For the GPPP the part of the vaunted Kyoto Protocols [40] that mattered most was the establishment of emission trading and flexible mechanisms. State franchises in developed nations (Annex B Parties) were allocated emission units to encourage them to decarbonise their industrialised economies. Each were allocated Assigned Amount Units (AAU's) restricting the Co2 they were permitted to emit.

  However, if they exceeded reduction targets they would have spare AAU's which they could sell as licensed emission permits to the highest bidder on the newly created carbon market. Countries that hadn't met their targets could buy permits to allow them to continue business as usual. Therefore the price of the emission permits was set by the market.

  For now, let's put aside the fact that this was all dependent upon scrupulous honesty and highly accurate, corruption free monitoring, registration & tracking systems. We'll just accept that, on the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable way to rid the atmosphere of allegedly excessive plant food (Co2). It compelled the world’s biggest polluters (the industrialised nations) to reduce their Co2 emissions. This seemed to present a considerable cost for the GPPP heavyweights and, for some, a potential threat to their economic models.

  Which is why so called flexible mechanisms were written into the protocols [41]. Emission Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were the three basic mechanisms. Emission trading meant the movement of capital between State franchises to meet their respective energy requirements while hypothetically reducing their emissions. The CBM and JI mechanisms were designed to ensure they didn't have to reduce them in practice.

  The JI mechanism allowed the developed nations to collaborate on emission reduction projects. The investing nation received credited emission reduction units (ERU's) for the calculated lowering of emissions, measured in units of tonnes of Co2. These were tracked and recorded in the emissions registry. For example, Germany earned 400,000 ERU's for investing in the construction of a French biomass power plant [42] in the Marne Valley.

  While this increased rather than decreased French Co2 emissions, that didn't matter to the German or French State franchises. For Germany it meant they could spend the ERU's their investment earned on their own energy generation. Thereby avoiding the need to reduce their own emissions by that amount while claiming they were implementing Energiewende.

  The French State franchise got a new power plant they could run at extremely low cost. While the biomass power plant continued to put increased levels of Co2 into the atmosphere they could register it as carbon neutral and earn ERU's to then trade as emission permits, thereby largely covering the running cost of their highly inefficient power plant.

  There were 192 signatories to the Kyoto Protocols and 37 developed nations were both blamed for climate change and expected to achieve their green house gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. With regard to the flexible mechanisms the U.N stated:

  "These mechanisms ideally encourage GHG abatement to start where it is most cost-effective, for example, in the developing world. It does not matter where emissions are reduced, as long as they are removed from the atmosphere. This has the parallel benefits of stimulating green investment in developing countries and including the private sector in this endeavour to cut and hold steady GHG emissions at a safe level."

  The Clean Development Mechanism [43] (CDM) allowed the GPPP to earn Certified Emission Reduction credits (CER's) by investing in emission reducing projects in developing nations. This enabled the GPP to assist developing nations to "leap frog" industrialisation which would otherwise be reliant upon horrible, affordable, readily available, stable energy sources like coal. Thus forcing developing nations to commit to some vague form of sustainable, minimal eco - development.

  While advanced industrialised nations, who participate in the transatlantic Anglo-American Establishment, have enjoyed the fruits of industrialisation, the people living in impoverished developing nations were not to be afforded that opportunity because of "sustainability." Once again we see that people do not matter when it comes to SDGs.

  In 2018 Carbon Market Watch released a report [44] which highlighted what sustainable development meant for people living in developing nations. They gave some examples of some CDM projects:

  "In Uganda, a private company blocked access to land vital for the livelihoods of local communities in order to claim credits for planting forests in that area. In India, a waste incinerator project diverted waste from landfills, where it would get sorted by local informal workers, and burned them in a facility located close to villages. In Chile and Guatemala, hydroelectricity projects exacerbated land right conflicts, destroyed social cohesion within villages, and damaged ecosystems and biodiversity."

  Private corporations could get in on the scam, hoovering up the global commons in developing nations, through the system of carbon credits [45] with each credit denominated as one tonne of GHG reduction. Again this didn't mean any reduction in existing GHG emission (predominantly Co2) but rather facilitated offsetting them by investing in efficiency projects in developing nations.

  Progressive celebrities flew around the world in their private jets promising to offset their carbon emissions by planting trees [46]. Multinational corporations carried on pumping out high emission totals by bribing corrupt officials in developing nations, turfing communities off ancestral lands and planting untended carbon sinks where once they grew food. This was a system for the haves and the have nots. Lecturing people about their commitment to the environment signalled the virtue of those who could afford it.

  The corporate feeding frenzy in the carbon market led to profiteering based upon ludicrous claims of sustainability. The Indian energy giant Reliance registered their high efficiency coal fired power station in Krishnapatnam in Andhra Pradesh under the CDM mechanism. The UN sanctioned the registration and awarded Reliance $165 million [47] in carbon credits. Coal fired power stations were built across India, in China and elsewhere while receiving carbon credits either to subsidise construction or to be traded for profit.

  A carbon trading gold-rush boomed as State franchises and global corporations threw themselves into emission trading with polluters eager to invest in CBM to more than offset their emissions and trade the accrued carbon on the global carbon market. In 2019 the Financial times [48] reviewed what this meant in terms of actually reducing global emissions:

  "It is much easier to buy the credit than verify the reduction.. projects may not represent a net gain to the environment. A 2016 study found that 73 per cent of carbon credits provided little or no environmental gain.. That figure rose to 85 per cent of projects under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism."

  The whole system was hopelessly corrupt and contributed nothing to any genuine reduction of Co2 emissions. Developing nations were stopped from producing future emissions, ensuring they rem
ained relatively poor, allowing developed nations to claim a reduction that didn't exist to offset their own emissions. Merely giving the appearance of sustainability. It was little more than a form of neocolonialism.

  However rank corruption and profiteering wasn’t the problem, according to the WEF. The real issue, they said, was that there was "no standardized way to trade carbon credits and no way to verify the compensating activity behind them." Although it took them, and the global financial institutions that run the green economy, 20 years to figure this out.

  In November 2020 the City of London Corporation (global financial market), the Green Finance Institute ( the City plus the State franchise) and the World Economic Forum (global corporations) convened the Green Horizon Summit [49]. Mark Carney, (now UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, the UK State Franchise special Advisor to the COP 26 conference and a Board Trustee of the WEF [50]) discussed the analysis from The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets [51]. The report noted:

  "The global community needs to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by no later than 2050. This will require a whole-economy transition. Every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models, develop credible plans for the transition and implement them.. To facilitate this global decarbonization there is a need for a large, transparent, verifiable and robust voluntary carbon market. The scaling up of markets has the potential to help support financial flows to developing countries, as activities and projects in these countries can provide a cost-effective source of these carbon emission reductions."