#UNFCCC

Climate experts demand Planet of the Humans be taken down

Planet of the humans

You have to love the climate alarmists. Instead of challenging, dissecting and dismantling each point made in ‘Planet of the Humans‘ that was factually incorrect or misleading, it is far easy to lean on “the science is settled” argument and put pressure on YouTube pull it down.

How do these people honestly think they will persuade climate sceptics or people sitting on the fence if the only answer is to stifle or shut down debate? What of those climate alarmists who may have been disappointed to see the crony socialism at play? If the science is indeed on their side, why not provide the rebuttals rich in data and empirical facts? That way people can make even more informed decisions instead of being pilloried for questioning such findings.

Let’s be honest. The truth is that renewables rely very heavily on the fossil fuel industry. From the mining of the raw materials to the energy-intensive manufacturing processes.

We, like most rational people, want clean air and efficient use of resources that minimise waste but the problem is that the economics to put these green dreams into action is punitive. Should we accept that one needs 400x the area of a gas-fired power plant to produce the same amount of output with renewables?

We could go on and on. Bill McKibben of the Sierra Club gifted us some amusing backflips much like his colleague Aaron Mair did in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the environment. The video is utterly hilarious in showing just how little the Sierra Club knows about the supposed field of expertise – global warming. The hot air was in abundance.

We have always wondered why even if one wanted to believe the supposed 97% of scientists that concur with global warming, isn’t there any curiosity about what the 3% have to say that challenges the prevailing sentiment?

Time to stop the world’s biggest welfare cheat

WHO are you

Being a welfare cheat is not a bad way to describe the United Nations.

In 2000, twenty-nine UN agencies employed a total of 48,500 staff. Scroll forward to the latest figures in 2018 and that has blown out to near as makes no difference, 110,000 across 38 distinct agencies. In 20 years time, one imagines the UN will be aiming to be twice the size with a whole new raft of agencies seeking new funding.

What the UN tends to do is conceive new agencies within its womb and then give birth to them leaving them to make their own way, generally by “small” under the radar voluntary payments under “trust” which grow exponentially over time. To its credit, the UN nails bureaucracy.

The more puzzling question is how can our governments be so blind as to keep encouraging this welfare cheat to claim more benefits for its ever extended family? What is the return on all that investment?

One should be disturbed at the way the UN lists the voluntary payments made by individual countries as an “honour roll.” That somehow we are not worthy unless we play ball. Cash for access? Not exactly. That all depends on who you are.

Analysing the UN “regular budget” papers reveals that prompt payment is encouraged. Australia just missed out on a podium position as it was the 4th nation to remit its full-year contribution on January 11th, 2019. All US$61 million.

China might have been a bit late to wire its 2019 contribution of US$343.7 million to the UN coffers but it is seen as the future. The United States was conspicuous by its absence from the honour roll board figures despite chipping in US$674.2 million in 2019. Mind you, this excludes all the other voluntary payments made to other UN bodies and peacekeeping units.

Is it any wonder that Trump wants to defund it. Can you name one other charity that treats its #1 philanthropic patron which contributes twice the amount of any other country in aggregate – 24% of the total – with such disdain? It is not as though the US has reduced its generosity over the past two decades. On the contrary. It has grown proportionally.

The World Health Organization (WHO) deserves particular attention. It has grown from 3,672 staff at the turn of the century to 8,153. The USA gifted WHO over $281 million in 2018 or 10% of its total income. In 2000 the US gave $148 million.

What gives? WHO has more than doubled its staff levels. In 2018, it raked in $2.9 billion in income, more than twice that of eighteen years ago. Yet with all these extra resources, it couldn’t provide superior intelligence much less improved outcomes. It reminds us of the Australian fire services during the recent bushfires.

How was it that WHO couldn’t give any sensible or consistent guidance about how the world needed to prepare for coronavirus? Why did it tell us there was no risk of human-to-human contact? Surely if those nations that volunteer 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars for a subscription service had the correct information, borders would have been shut way sooner and the devastation mitigated.

For if WHO had done its own homework in Wuhan, it would never have criticised Trump’s travel ban “on the basis of “unnecessarily interfering with international travel and trade” and “increasing fear and stigma.“, something that was lazily just dug out of the pandemic playbook from 2017. Since when have ever pandemics played to a one size fits all prescription?

Why was WHO blindly parroting whatever came out from Beijing’s propaganda ministry instead of using its $190 million annual travel budget to investigate China’s watered-down claims for itself? Why did it take so long to call a pandemic? One assumes that pandering to its future is the way to keep the gravy train going, even if it unnecessarily costs countless lives.

What do all these surplus to requirement staff across UN bodies actually do for all the extra money lobbed at them?

UNICEF has more than trebled its workforce since 2000. Over 1/3rd of its $6.7bn income in 2018 was spent on “cash assistance.” If cash transfers are the largest expense line, should we just settle for the notion that we need 3x the number of staff to administer it? Most of this cash is distributed to countries that rank amongst the worst in terms of corruption. The audited accounts talk about fraud mitigation strategies. That makes sense when only $438,000 is detected and $15,000 recovered on $2.3 billion of cash assistance. At 0.02% of funds misappropriated, any major bank would blush with performance figures like that.

To get a grasp of how children move onto their own welfare teat, the UNFCCC, aka the climate change cult, had a $99m budget in 2018 to feed 738 mouths. When it was spun out of the parent UN in 2011/2012 it had a $30m budget across 461 staff. For 2020-21, the UNFCCC is looking for $177 million. Within that, $31.2 million is set aside for “complementary activities broadly mandated as beneficial to achieving UNFCCC objectives and goals.” Another $21 million for IT and data. Of course, it requires $36.3 million in “oversight and administration

Governance and oversight have never been a strong suit at the UN. UNAIDS gave us a perfect example of how sacred cows are protected by the parent.

Independent experts concluded that UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  had been responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favouritism, preferment and ethical blindness.” Sidibé accepted no responsibility for any sexual harassment, bullying or abuse of power that occurred under his watch.

The investigation started after Sidibé’s deputy was accused of forcibly kissing, groping and trying to drag a colleague into his Bangkok hotel room in 2015.

In a survey of the 670 staff members at the UN agency conducted by independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favours. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero-tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms?

Perhaps the economic devastation that will result from coronavirus will be the perfect excuse for countries to drastically wind back payments to these UN bodies. There appears overwhelming evidence that more money doesn’t always buy better outcomes much less lift ethical behaviour. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Dutch Supreme Court sets very dangerous precedent

No folks, this is not a joke. This is what happens when a judiciary drops impartiality and starts acting as an activist lawmaker instead of a law enforcer. The Dutch parliament is supposed to set legislation. Since when did the judiciary inherit such capabilities by a mandate from the people?

The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled the Dutch government must cut emissions by 25% by 2020 on 1990 levels on the grounds that not doing so is a violation of human rights.

To put that into context, on a per capita basis, Dutch GHG emissions have fallen 11.9% since 1990 to 9.5t per person. However, actual Dutch CO2 output in 1990 was 161,447kt CO2-e vs 162,290kt CO2e in 2017 based on. So a 25% cut vs. 1990 levels would mean the target would be 121,085kt CO2-e.

Let us not forget that the Dutch are responsible for 0.4% of global human-caused emissions. So to cut that by 25% on the latest numbers with growing emissions from China and India will mean the Dutch will be responsible for 0.3% of global emissions. Does the Dutch Supreme Court truly believe the lives of Dutch citizens will be remotely improved by knocking 0.1% off the global total?

Clearly, the Supreme Court didn’t need evidence. Which body did the Supreme Court base its verdict? On UN climate conventions. There is a problem in and of itself.

Never mind that the UN said this about the Netherlands in the past,

The WG2 IPCC climate bible noted, “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”.

This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding.”

Never mind that the UN didn’t issue a retraction. Who needs to know correct facts?

It gets worse,

An IPCC report which investigated models showed 98% have overestimated warming.

The Twelfth Session of Working Group I (WGI-12) was held from 23 to 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. At the Session, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) was approved and the underlying scientific and technical assessment accepted.

Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I and Working Group I depends solely on the climate data of which 98% have proven wrong.

Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models” in WGI-12 notes:

Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}

“…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)

Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets(e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).

Does the Dutch Supreme Court believe it knows better than the scientists the UN rely upon who openly admit the data is wrong? So climate change could affect food supply?

We all know the Dutch love chocolate.

Half of the world’s chocolate is currently sourced from just two African countries: Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make it less suitable for cocoa production in the future.

The research highlighted in the IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability report indicate that, under a “business as usual” scenario, those countries will experience a 3.8°F (2.1°C) increase in temperature by 2050 which could seriously impact cocoa production.

Claims that changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable…production has more than doubled in the past 3 decades.

Dutch PM Mark Rutte was absolutely right to say this was a matter for politicians, not courts. What has been proven by this landmark decision is that the court is acting as a lawmaker which is NOT its role.

While some could argue that the Green Left took 9.1% of the vote in the 2017 Dutch election – its best-ever result – the latest polls for 2021 see the party ceding seats. It is hardly a mandate of the people to drastically cut emissions in such a ridiculous space of time.

Has the Dutch Supreme Court understood that c.20% of the economy is driven by industry – electronics, metal production, engineering – and agriculture? Should PM Rutte demand that it all be shut down? Will air traffic controllers at Schipol Airport be arrested and jailed if they let commercial aeroplanes circle for too long in low visibility conditions?

Dutch electricity generation is 75% powered by fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). Does the Supreme Court believe that cutting emissions 25% by 2020 is even remotely achievable without trashing the economy? Will cars be banned from the roads on weekends? Flights suspended on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays? How about Dutch citizens who don’t have a windmill bolted to their home get electricity rationed?

In conclusion, how on earth can the Dutch hit a 25% reduction target inside 12 months? Who will be charged and jailed for failing to meet these obligations in a country where no party has a mandate?

FNF Media sincerely hopes the Dutch government acquiesces the Supreme Court and watches the economy implode as it pushes energy austerity to hit targets that will reduce global emissions by 0.1%, or a 0.00000124% impact to all the CO2 in the atmosphere. All that pain for absolutely no gain.

We need a test case guinea pig to show the world just how ridiculously stupid climate alarmism is. At least the Dutch can self-medicate inside marijuana cafes in Amsterdam.

In all seriousness, the landmark decision of a Supreme Court dictating terms to the very body that sets laws is one that sets a dangerous precedent. Activism is now part and parcel of the Dutch judiciary.

Time indulges another totalitarian voice for the 2019 Person of the Year

16yo climate alarmist Greta Thunberg defines our age. As many of you know, she has been awarded Time’s 2019 Person of the Year. Sort of fitting given the magazine has a tendency to hand it to those that speak in totalitarian tones (not her own of course). Recently, she dropped the following statement,

After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.

One doesn’t have to be a teenager either to formulate such views. It wasn’t so long ago that an 11-yo implored all climate activists to go beyond the battle for global warming and fight for gun control, LGBTQ+ rights and to demand that her teachers can receive a living wage. How dare we even question where she got such thoughts! Kids just know better than we selfish adults (who used to recycle milk bottles, wash diapers and push lawnmowers) who have trashed their planet!

FNFM has always felt pity for poor Greta and written so on multiple occasions. She has been systematically abused by authoritarian adults to push their ridiculous globalist agenda. Knowing that it is uncool to attack a kid, she makes the perfect human shield. She is the participation trophy personified. Her “how dare you” assertions are never challenged by the media who toss softball questions to further deify this high priestess of the climate change movement. We must not challenge and inevitably we will probably lose our right to do so thanks to the cancel culture amongst the youth today. Such blasphemy won’t be tolerated.

No one can deny the passion with which she has embraced her cause even if not completely aware of the hypocrisy created by it. While the gesture of sailing on carbon-based yachts across the Atlantic and back to save the planet in order to slash her carbon footprint was noble, the reality is that she would have lowered the aggregate carbon footprint by jumping a scheduled flight that was taking off anyway. Why, because the boat owners had to fly sailors across the ocean to make it a reality. Yet we can calculate her potential impact:

If we assume Greta’s weight around 35-40kg, it would mean she would add 0.016% to the fuel calculations a Boeing 777 pilot would have to account for. Her impact would be so minuscule as to beggar belief.

280 million trips were made by commercial aircraft last year according to the IATA. Her transatlantic return flight would only be 2 of those meaning she would represent 0.000000714% of all annual flights taken.

Given that airlines, by the IATA’s own stats, annually produce the equivalent to 2% of all man-made emissions or 0.000016% in total, her two flights would make up around 0.0000000000114%. That is slightly unfair as the journey would be longer than most flights (predominantly short-haul). So if e bumped it 4-fold, her return trip would have penalized the planet 0.0000000000007314%.

Thunberg has amassed 3.2m Twitter followers. It is an incredible feat in and of itself. However, FNFM worries that with all of this social media exposure, when none of the prophetic doom and gloom she parrots comes to pass by the deadlines set by climate alarmists, she might realise she has been summarily duped by the very people who have actually “stolen her childhood.”

Unfortunately, she is blissfully blind to being amidst the epicentre of 27,000 hypocritical climate catastrophists at the COP25 summit, most of who flew in to tell us how we all must save the planet (on their behalf). In that sense, it is wonderful to know there is still some innocence left.

If only she knew that her climate change evangelism has thrust the ‘save the planet‘ agenda back on the map, leading to the 21% surge in delegates over the Katowice (COP24) conference. If she wants to fight against those who have “stolen her dreams” they are right in front of her.

Many of her critics suggest she should go back to school. FNFM disagrees. What is the point of sending Greta back to the very institutions that planted the seeds of this Marxist indoctrination in the first place?

To be honest, if we are to submit to the whims of teenagers who know all there is to know, we should close down our universities because there is simply no value in tertiary education, especially now that these centres for open thinking are muzzling it on campus.

Maybe one day, when Greta has a teenager of her own (assuming she doesn’t try to avoid having kids to save the planet), she will see for herself what we knew all along.

As the old saying goes. “Experience is a hard teacher. You get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

COP 25 Delegates by nation & aspirational virtue

Image result for brown envelopes bribe

Carbon Brief has done an admirable job denoting how many delegates from each country are attending the COP25 boondoggle, sorry, climate conference. It notes,

“The country with the most delegates is, by some distance, Côte d’Ivoire with 348. The West African nation also brought the largest delegation to COP23 in Bonn in 2017 – with 492 participants – and the fourth largest to COP24 in Katowice in 2018, with 208.

Côte d’Ivoire’s delegation is more than 50 people larger than the second-placed country, which is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with 293. The DRC also had the second-largest number of delegates at COP24 (with 237) and the third largest at COP23 (340).”

40.7% of delegates are from Africa. Similar to past years. Clearly, these COP summits create a fantastic opportunity to prey on the guilt of the West. As FNFM noted last year, the correlation with the number of delegates and the corruption index was significant.

India sent 35 to COP25 down from 182 at COP21. China sent 76, down from 326 respectively although it is more likely they sent investment bankers to see which African nation they can bribe to plunder their resources.

Australia has sent only 20 delegates but we should champion the fact that 65% of them were women. We even beat New Zealand’s 19 delegate field which only had 58% women. That should please those with Kiwi envy.

In what should rile the gender equality activists and Trump haters, the Paris Accord spurning Americans had higher proportional female representation than the EU or Norway. So much for capitalist pigs shunning socialist norms!

Syria had 100% female representation with the sole delegate. However the male patriarchy was perpetuated thanks to zero female representation from Pakistan, Yemen, Eritrea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mauritius and Libya.

Naturally nothing will come of COP25 until a grandiose statement to tackle the climate emergency (FNFM is surprised the Wollongong City Council hasn’t sent a team after the unanimous declaration to “adopt an aspirational emissions reduction target of zero emissions by 2030 for its own operations“) comes in the death throes of the last day when the most hot air is produced.

COP 25 & Gender – apparently it’s a thing

Let’s get real. If the alarmists really believe we have no time to waste in order to save the rest of us from absolute doom and gloom, why is “gender equality” being pushed so hard at the COP25 summit?? If women make the best scientists, why not make them 100% of the process? That’s sensible. Alas, it simply exposes why the UN deserves to be defunded in order that it rationalise around proper governance practices. After all, this is the mob that thought Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a good WHO ambassador and went out of its way to protect one of their own through a sexual harassment scandal at UNAIDS.

The document published at the COP25 summit today noted,

The full, meaningful and equal participation and leadership of women in all
aspects of the UNFCCC process and in national – and local-level climate policy and action,
including in consultations on the planning and review thereof is vital for achieving long-term climate goals…Collecting data, including sex-disaggregated data, and evaluating and
reporting on the effectiveness of processes to integrate gender considerations into climate
policy and action are vital for replicating action and strengthening efforts…”

The ultimate irony for the brains trust at the United Nations is explained by an extensive survey taken by itself on the processes in the compilation of the IPCC climate bible. Countless scientists slammed the lack of competence of the lead authors where the UN pushed diversity (i.e. identity politics) instead of scientific qualifications.

Donna Laframboise noted in her book, “The Delinquent Teenager” the following,

“In early 2010 the InterAcademy Council, an organization comprised of science bodies from around the world, took an historic step. It established a committee whose purpose was to investigate IPCC policies and procedures.

The committee posted a questionnaire on its website and invited interested parties to respond. Answers to those questionnaires were eventually made public after the names of the respondents had been removed. Those provided by IPCC insiders can be separated from the ones submitted by concerned citizens because the questionnaire begins by asking what role the respondent has played in the IPCC.

People with direct experience of this organization were remarkably frank in their feedback. According to them, scientific excellence isn’t the only reason individuals are invited to participate in the IPCC.

Remember, this is a UN body. It therefore cares about the same things other UN bodies care about. Things like diversity. Gender balance. Regional representation. The degree to which developing countries are represented compared to developed countries.
The collected answers to the questionnaire total 678 pages. As early as page 16, someone complains that:

“some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.”

Here are other direct quotes:

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

“The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

“half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped, the person whose comments appear on page 330 agrees:

“The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.”

The questionnaire did not contain the word gender. Nevertheless, it is uttered dozens of times in the answers people provided. While some feel the IPCC should not aim for gender balance, others applaud the use of this selection criteria. Among those with firsthand IPCC experience, therefore, it is an open secret that some people are
appointed for reasons that have little to do with world-class scientific expertise.

Depending on whose opinion you believe, this is true in either a small minority of cases or with regard to as many as half of the authors. In the view of at least one person, every IPCC personnel decision is influenced by concerns unrelated to science.

Clearly, it didn’t pay any attention to the results. Because if it did it wouldn’t be able to invent the kind of hysteria (that it has climbed down from constantly over time) to bully virtue signalling governments to force we mere peons to hand over $100s of billion every year to a bunch of incompetent globalists who want to keep this bandwagon going.

Japan-bashing at COP25

From the UN Climate Summit pages today.

Japanese Minister of Economy and Trade Hiroshi Kajiyama today (Dec 3) said his country wants to continue using coal, even though UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report recommends the opposite. Recent reports suggest Japan may not submit a new climate plan in 2020, as it should under the Paris Agreement.

JUST IN! Australia, Japan and Brazil are joint winners of COP25’s first Fossil of the Day award #FossiloftheDay (Dec 3).

Note the video for the COP25 Fossil of the Day award above.

When will these people get that shaming doesn’t do anything to sway skeptics of impending Armageddon? Skeptics will take it with the seriousness these alarmists dish their religious fervor out.

Note in SG Guterres’ opening speech for COP25 that he didn’t mention China or India once. Never mind. Just preach in the full knowledge that China has committed to grow an Australia in emissions every week by 2030 from the current 2 weeks.

27,000 (+21%) to attend the COP 25 in Madrid thanks to Greta

COP25

The climate alarmists owe 16-yo Greta Thunberg a sincere debt of gratitude. She has reopened the spigots on attendees to the UN COP25 summit.  For all of the planet-saving efforts made by her nautical exploits, an extra 5,000 climate disciples will belch CO2 from commercial jets making their way to the Madrid conference to lecture us on how the rest of us must behave. Sadly for Greta, she will be late. 26,706 people will attend COP25. Up from the 22,000 who attended COP 24 last year (+21.4%) in Katowice, Poland which included 7,331 observers (9,987 this time, +36%). Whatever happened to video streaming? The COP25 summit provides for it here. Nope, 10,000 observers must be present to stake their claim on crony capitalism.

CM is curious whether chanting and laughter brigades will be deployed to disrupt forums on coal again or to expect the value-added input of the “Fossil of the Day Awards” where the host brazenly shames representatives who don’t conform to the realpolitik of the climate alarmists. Expect daily reports of doom and gloom.

CM is yet to see the statistics on the full breakdown where attendees will be coming from but will report in due course. As a reference marker, COP summits are little more than a cash grab which is pretty obvious when looking at the delegates present at COP 24. 42% of those at COP24 were from Africa, lining up to receive $10s if not $100s of millions in funding from guilt-ridden Western nations. There was a reason why Guinea sent 409 delegates and Australia 30, even though the latter has twice the population of the former. The correlation to corruption is high. Who’da thunk?

Greta just made climate summits cool again!

Brain dead award the brainwashed

GQ Magazine has awarded Greta Thunberg with its Game Changer Of The Year award. Can we cynically argue that GQ is hijacking the stardom of the 16yo for their own commercial success?

CM has said for the longest time that she is indeed brave to do what she does and absolutely no criticism lies at her feet. What a shame she is the product of brainwashing from activist teachers and parents. The way political leaders fawn over her. Probably speaks volumes that so many of today’s world leaders have no progeny (France’s Macron – no kids. Former UK PM Theresa May – no kids. The Netherlands PM Mark Rutte – no kids. Swedish PM Kjell Stefan Löfven- no biological kids. Luxembourg PM Xavier Bettel – no kids. Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon – no kids. Former EC President Jean-Claude Juncker – no kids, Japan’s PM Abe also has no children) meaning they don’t share the feelings experienced by an overwhelming majority of parents who eye roll whenever their 16yo pretend to be experts on any subject.

At least she channelled Melania Trump for her photoshoot. The ultimate form of irony.

As she sails across the Atlantic to the Americas in a boat part-owned by someone who owns a large chunk of a private helicopter transport fleet, we already knew her impact on a scheduled flight would have given her more face time. Note CM calculated her footprint would amount to 0.0000000000007314% of CO2.

Will organizers be waiting at the docks with a fleet of fossil fuel charged Teslas to whisk her away? As long as she uses the Aland Index to calculate the carbon footprint of her hotel stay to minimize her impact on the environment. If the hotel comps her bill the Aland Index will output zero emissions. For the sake of the planet let’s hope they do.

Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech

What troubles CM is that the soon to be Dr Thunberg (she will be given an honorary doctorate from the University of Mons in Belgium) will be abused even more by those pushing the climate change narrative. She is the perfect human shield to the divisive machine that lurks begins her. It is hard to criticize a movement when the face is a child.

She faces either nothing happening with the climate and being exposed as brainwashed. Or the policies she espouses will lead to such a miserable existence that life will be even more terrible than it is now.

This is not to criticize Thunberg per se. She is undoubtedly a very brave girl to face world leaders and celebrities with such scripted messages.

Here is the transcript of Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech. The socialist imprints are all over the language. Especially when the 16-yo tells the audience they are simply “uninformed.” Watch out for the coming “carbon budget” which will mean you have to turn vegan, stop flying and take on your moral duty to stop spending other’s carbon credits!!

——

Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.


That is unless, in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of industrialized society have taken place. Including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale.

Furthermore, these scientific calculations do not include most unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops.

Nor do these calculations include already locked in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale.

And these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.
These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC.

So if we are to stay below the 1,5 degrees of warming limit, which is still possible within the laws of physics, we need to change almost everything. We need to start living within the planetary boundaries. This will be a drastic change for many, but not for most.

Because most of the world’s population is already living within the planetary boundaries. It is a minority who are not. 

The richest 10% of the world’s population emits about half of our emissions of greenhouse gases. The richest 1% emits more than the poorest 50%.

And this is not about glorifying poverty, this is about the laws of physics and the remaining amount of greenhouse gases that we can still emit into the atmosphere to be in line with the Paris agreement.

It is not people in countries like Mozambique, Bangladesh or Colombia who are most responsible for this crisis. It is mostly down to people like you here in the audience.

Entrepreneurs, celebrities, politicians, business leaders. People who have a lot of power.
People who consume enormous amounts of stuff. Who often fly around the world, sometimes in private jets.

Your individual carbon footprints are in some cases the equivalent of whole villages.

But the worst part I think is that you are normalizing this extreme lifestyle. Because people look up to you. You are the role models, you are setting the standards. People aspire to be like you.

About 100 companies emit approximately 71% of our total emissions of CO2. And yes I know, we need a system change rather than individual change. But you can not have one without the other.

If you look through history all the big changes in society have been started by people at the grassroots level. No system change can come without pressure from large groups of individuals.

And no, I don’t blame you. I know you are not acting like this because you are stupid. You are not ruining the biosphere and future living conditions for all species because you are evil. At least I hope not. I know that almost everyone of you are simply uninformed. Just like the rest of the world’s population.

I know that you here in the audience didn’t travel here to see a sixteen-year-old girl who says strange and uncomfortable things.

But you know what? We need to dare to be uncomfortable. We need to be brave enough to say and do things that may not increase our profit or our popularity. Because otherwise, we won’t stand a chance.

We need to start thinking outside the box. To acknowledge that we don’t have all the solutions to the climate and ecological crises yet unless those solutions mean that we simply stop doing certain things.

We need to accept that the market and new technologies will not solve everything for us. We need to admit our common failure. And then we need to act, while there’s still time

At meetings like these, you love to listen to entrepreneurs, new ideas and new inventions. But when it comes to the climate crisis the time for those magic new inventions has just about come and gone.

And even though we most certainly need to embrace every bit of new clean technology – we can no longer look away from the obvious fact that we also need to change our behaviour. Some more than others.

The theme of this year’s Brilliant Minds conference is “Fluxability Quotient”. It’s what the organizers call “a symphony of big-picture thinking”.
Well, here is some big-picture thinking for you.

If you regularly fly around the world, eat meat and dairy and are living a high carbon lifestyle then that means you have used up countless of people’s remaining carbon budgets. Carbon budgets that they will need in their everyday life, for generations to come.

And if that wasn’t enough, those whose carbon budgets we are stealing are the ones least responsible and the ones who are going to be affected the most by this crisis.

According to climate scientist Kevin Anderson, if the richest 10% of the world’s population would lower their emissions to that of the average citizen of the European Union, then the world’s emissions of CO2 would be cut by about one third.

I think we can safely say that everyone in this room belongs to that 10%. Including me.

Everyone and everything needs to change. But the bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty.

To make the changes required we need role models and leaders. People like you. I am certain that most of you sitting here will have the wisdom, the courage and the common sense to take a few steps back. To see the full picture. To make the sacrifices that are necessary. And to become the leaders we need you to be.

The question is, will you do it in time?

Future generations are counting on you. Don’t let us down.