What took the group thinking EU so long? What better way to justify more taxation and wealth redistribution than to declare a “climate emergency”? What you are about to read is a perfect explanation of how little credibility exists in the European Parliament (EuroParl).
In black and white, EuroParl noted,
“EU countries should at least double their contributions to the international Green Climate Fund, Parliament says. EU member states are the largest providers of public climate finance and the EU’s budget should fully comply with its international commitments. They also note that pledges by developed countries do not meet the collective goal of 100 billion USD per year as of 2020…Finally, they urgently call on all EU countries to phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.”
Now, this is where it gets curious. Take a look at this file (from page 8) and ask yourself, how many amendments to resolutions within the “climate emergency” conversation were rejected supporting the overall declaration passing 429 in favour, 215 against, 19 abstaining?
Here is one amendment that was rejected 95, 563, 9 by MEPs (you can’t make this stuff up),
“Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that
all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it
scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is
no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and
what percentage is natural”
Seems fair enough! Basing decisions affecting 550 million constituents on real hard data is the right thing to do, no? Clearly not. Shut up and follow the religious cult and demand followers cough up twice as much into the collections pot. The lobbyists must be well pleased.
“Text as a whole without the words: ‘urgently’, ‘and implement’ and ‘to net-zero
emissions by 2050″ defeated 101, 555, 15.
Isn’t it striking that the majority of MEPs won’t even consciously vote in favour of making sure funds are spent appropriately? Nope, bow down and shut up. Otherwise face being cut off as we get to observe from the EuroParl documents below.
This is what an MEP from Northern Ireland, Claire Fox, had to say,
“Madam President, I voted against the climate and environmental emergency motion because I’m really concerned at the hyped-up anti-science scaremongering that’s terrifying young people, telling them that billions will die, that there’ll be a collapse of civilisation, a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Extinction Rebellion and echoed in the debate over the last few days. I think that the fact that we voted against an amendment today that said that we should be committed to bringing the environmental subject back to rational discussion, and we rejected it, admits that actually, we’re having an irrational discussion. This becomes advocacy and propaganda, rather than science. There’s no scientific evidence from the IPCC or anyone else about the extinction of humanity, and we should be very careful about claiming that anthropological climate changes cause floods and droughts, which we have been doing quite casually during the last few days. In fact, the IPCC says that such issues are probably caused by socio-economic conditions, and we forget socio-economic conditions too much and demand, in fact, as this Parliament has done, decarbonisation, which will lead to eco-austerity, massive price hikes in energy, and ordinary working people paying the cost for scaremongering and...
(The President cut off the speaker)
or another Northern Irish MEP Robert Rowland,
“Madam President, I’d just like to reiterate what my colleague said. I also rejected the COP24 resolution. I may not be an Economics Professor, but I do profess to understand economics. They also call it the dismal science, but when it comes to the climate emergency, I would describe the apocalyptic forecasts as nothing but science fiction. The adoption of these policies today, and the aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 is nothing short of reckless and the most extreme example of economic illiteracy I’ve ever seen. The fact that amendments were rejected demanding a full impact assessment shows rank indifference to the cost and practicality of aggressive climate policies.
One thing I can say for certain is that the impact of net-zero makes the consequence of any form of Brexit look puny by comparison. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy and Economics at Oxford University, was right when he said: ‘We should be honest that it is a huge industrial undertaking, and it will have significant cost. These are enormous industrial activities, there is nothing in history that looks like this outside of wartime.’
In my own country, our own Chancellor has put that cost at over one trillion pounds, or almost 2% of GDP per annum. It is an insane policy.“
If the EU truly wishes to make itself even less competitive, in the face of some of the world’s highest electricity prices, they are only self-flagellating in an already flailing economy which continues to slow to 5-year lows. If the EU truly looked at its record since 2007, it would see its policies have delivered 40 million more people into poverty, a number which totals 118 million people, or 23% of the EU population!
If there was ever a bigger load of intellectual dishonesty posted by the EU it would be this. It states that,
“Climate emergency declarations in 1,195 jurisdictions and local governments cover 545 million citizens with 53 million of those living in the United Kingdom. This means in Britain now roughly 80 per cent of the population lives in areas that have declared a climate emergency. ”
The irony if such a statement is that there is no way in the world that 545 million citizens are in agreement within those 1,195 jurisdictions. 53mn Brits? Seriously? In Australia’s case, many declaring climate emergencies have been local green-left councils who have made idle gestures without backing it up with realities. Constituents have not been asked. Windfarm plans for Warringah are not on the agenda.
The greatest irony with the EU is that they classify biomass (which is more polluting than coal) as a renewable and gives it a zero-carbon emission weighting provided a tree is planted per tree burnt. Sadly trees take 40 years to fully grow to be able to offset that produced. However, we will discover that the fine print taketh away the wonderful headlines.
Will the Poles ditch their coal industry to comply or face savage reprisals from Brussels? Will the EU guarantee Poland gets huge subsidies to pay for its termination? Which country would be so blind as to put their livelihoods into the hands of the EU!? The Greeks might have a view as do the Brits.
This action will spectacularly blow up.
By all means ride the short term wave of renewables stocks but be sure to line up all of those nasty fossil fuel companies into the portfolio that get pummeled by financial markets because the type of economic disaster that will beset the EU will only create the conditions where the peons will revolt and force a return to the way things were. Efficient, cheap and reliable forms of energy that will make a proper dent in the poverty line rather than promises and handouts.
The EU needs to learn the lesson that “Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.” It won’t be long before the youth of today get to embrace their love for socialism. Experience is a hard teacher. They’ll get the test first and the lesson afterwards.