More and more people recognise that the so-called climate emergency is not about the Earth’s climate but is a vehicle for wealth redistribution, central planning and eroding national borders in favour of supranational governance.

So the UN is trying to muscle in, take control and force its climate scam on all nations.  The Globalist organisation has taken it upon itself to declare that its climate decrees are “international law” and nations must obey or face the consequences.

Irrespective of what the UN or any of its puppets say or do, we must never lose sight of the facts: CO₂, the gas of life, is not the enemy; centralised power pretending to save the planet at the expense of liberty is.

United Nations Claims All Must Fight “Climate Change”

By Alex Newman, as published by Liberty Sentinel on 22 July 2026

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Trump Opposition to the UN Climate Play
3. The World Court and Its Climate Ruling
4. Critics Ridicule It All as Narrative Implodes
5. Trump and Experts Pushing Back
6. Roots in Globalist Ideology
7. Implications for Sovereignty and Economy
8. Historical Parallels and the Path Forward
9. About the Author

Introduction

Reports about the death of climate alarmism have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, obeying United Nations climate decrees is now officially “international law.” At least that is what two key UN entities and more than 140 national governments would like humanity to believe.

In one of the most consequential developments yet for the global climate movement, the UN General Assembly voted to formally endorse and “operationalise” a 2025 ruling by the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) declaring that governments are legally obligated to combat climate change.

Supporters hailed the move as a historic victory for “climate justice.” Critics blasted it as a brazen assault on national sovereignty, self-government, affordable energy and constitutional government.

The major UN move came even as US President Donald Trump and his administration were stepping up their war on the “climate change” machine. But the US government’s vigorous opposition was not enough to stop the UN’s power grab.

In one of its most breathtaking rulings, the ICJ – also known as the “World Court” or “World Supreme Court” – ruled on 23 July 2025 that all governments have a legal duty to protect “human rights” and fight “global warming” by restricting emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Officially, it was “advisory.” But on 20 May this year, the governments of the world, acting through the UN, voted to give it real force.

Among other elements, the new resolution charges the UN boss with advancing “compliance” with the court’s controversial decision. It also purports to interfere with the sovereign authority of governments to set their own policies on issues such as energy, the environment and even immigration, multiple governments warned.

The UN chief was enthusiastic about it, though. “The world’s highest court has spoken,” gushed UN Secretary-General António Guterres, a longtime Socialist Party operative. “Today, the General Assembly has answered.”

In a 20 May statement welcoming the General Assembly vote, Guterres described its resolution as “a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis.”

Critics argued that the vote, which passed with 141 governments and tyrants in favour versus eight against and 28 abstentions, represents yet another brazen power grab by globalist forces. The UN General Assembly, or UNGA, has been described by top UN officials as the “Parliament of Humanity.”

The UN resolution seeks to transform the opinion of the so-called World Supreme Court into a de facto legal weapon against national sovereignty, hydrocarbon energy, economic freedom and, ultimately, human prosperity, opponents argued.

Trump Opposition to the UN Climate Play

Multiple critics have pointed out that this goes far beyond environmental policy. Instead, it is a frontal assault on self-government dressed up in the language of international law and human rights.

The legal foundation to criminally prosecute those who refuse to play along with the climate narrative is being laid down rapidly through these measures. Indeed, the resolution treats the ICJ opinion as “irrefutably authoritative and as setting out binding obligations on States,” warned US officials.

Among those forcefully opposing the UN General Assembly measure was the Trump administration on behalf of the American people. US taxpayers are by far the largest financiers of the UN, even though the outfit consistently works against the rights and interests of Americans.

“Throughout the negotiation of this resolution, the United States has been consistent in conveying our opposition to this initiative,” argued Ambassador Tammy Bruce, deputy US representative to the UN. “The United States did not support seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on climate change and has many concerns about the Court’s opinion.”

The ICJ’s July 2025 ruling, spanning hundreds of pages, declared that governments have a “legal duty” under international law to prevent “environmental harm” by slashing CO₂ emissions. Failure to do so, the court warned, could constitute an “internationally wrongful act.”

ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa painted an apocalyptic picture: Man-made global warming is supposedly an “existential problem of planetary proportions” imperilling “all forms of life.” States must “cooperate” to meet emission targets, phase out fossil fuels and provide “climate justice” reparations to poorer nations, Iwasawa and other members of the court declared.

In comments delivered ahead of the General Assembly vote, Ambassador Bruce highlighted some of the problems the US government saw with the resolution and the World Court ruling.

“In brief, this resolution is highly problematic in calling on States to comply with so-called ‘obligations’ that are based on non-binding conclusions of the Court on which UN Member States’ views diverge,” she said. “The resolution includes inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels and on other climate topics, and we believe there is no basis for the resolution’s mandate to the Secretary-General to report on the complex and nuanced legal issues addressed by the Court.”

Several other governments expressed similar concerns, Bruce said.

Specifically, the UN resolution and the ICJ ruling claim that all governments have obligations that would “impermissibly interfere with each States’ [sic] sovereign rights to regulate and manage its own energy policy,” Bruce continued. The UN resolution also pretends that “peoples,” rather than individuals, have “human rights,” she noted.

The World Court and Its Climate Ruling

The ICJ climate case – pushed by Pacific Island governments such as Vanuatu with heavy UN backing – was billed as the most significant ever before the court. One analyst said it was tantamount to putting the entire industrialised world on trial.

The ruling was designed from the outset to provide legal cover for the entire UN climate regime, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, and to arm activists, non-governmental organisations and foreign governments with tools to harass energy producers and sovereign nations, analysts observed.

“Failure of a state [government] to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” ICJ President Iwasawa said, making clear that the climate movement ultimately intends to use global “authorities” to impose its agenda on humanity by force.

The court echoed that view in its unanimous, 500-page opinion. “Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” the court warned, a clear threat.

The International Court of Justice, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, is considered the principal judicial body of the UN. Its 15 judges are elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council – bodies in which tyrannical regimes often hold equal sway with free nations.

Along with the International Criminal Court, critics have long derided the ICJ as a “kangaroo” court. Among other concerns, analysts have noted its politicised rulings that advance globalist agendas over genuine justice. Key principles from the US Constitution are notably absent.

In its climate ruling, the court leaned heavily on “customary international law,” the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”), the Paris Agreement, and even nebulous “human rights” obligations. Trump has announced the US withdrawal from many of those schemes, but globalist legal experts believe the ruling still applies under human rights.

Indeed, the UN’s top court asserted that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is a human right, a view echoed in the General Assembly resolution adopted on 20 May. As such, states must curb emissions to comply with their supposed international human-rights obligations. Critics have long noted that the UN rejects the traditional US and Christian understanding of God-given rights, instead promoting a Soviet-style view of revokable “rights” to government “services.”  

The ruling has especially significant implications for Western nations. Wealthy nations, the ICJ suggested, bear heightened responsibilities for dealing with climate change. That should include taxpayer-funded financial support and potential liability for what it described as “transboundary harm.”

The opinion’s “advisory” nature is a fig leaf. While the ICJ lacks its own army, its rulings carry “moral authority” and are routinely weaponised in domestic courts, international negotiations and activist litigation, as multiple UN officials pointed out before and after it was handed down.

The UNGA resolution amplifies this by welcoming the opinion and going even further, calling on states to “take all possible steps” to avoid climate harm, and keeping it on the agenda for future action. It also reinforces purported obligations under the Paris Agreement and paves the way for lawsuits, reparations claims and pressure on holdouts such as the Trump administration.

Critics Ridicule It All as Narrative Implodes

Ironically, the General Assembly decision came amid more and more bad news for proponents of the increasingly embattled man-made global-warming hypothesis. Polling shows most Americans reject the whole narrative, and even Democrats and the establishment media admit that talking about climate is a non-starter with US voters.

A stunning new poll released just days after the UN vote showed most Americans reject the UN’s climate hypothesis altogether. According to the survey by Pew Research, only 48 per cent of Americans even believe human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing climate change. About 22 per cent believe the warming is natural, 17 per cent are not sure what is causing it and 12 per cent do not even believe the planet is warming at all.

Among Republicans, just one in five believe human activities are causing global warming, Pew revealed. Almost 40 per cent believe the warming is natural, and one in four do not even believe the globe is heating up. About three out of four Democrats, by contrast, believe human emissions of CO₂ are to blame for observed warming.

This partisan divide underscores a deeper truth, analysts said. The “climate crisis” narrative is less about science and more about ideology, power and control. Republicans and sceptics, informed by decades of failed doomsday predictions – from the 1970s global-cooling scare to Al Gore’s ice-free Arctic prophecies – recognise the narrative for what it is. Democrats and globalists cling to it as a vehicle for wealth redistribution, central planning and eroding national borders in favour of supranational governance.

But even Democrats and leftists are recognising the political danger of peddling the alarmism. Indeed, The New York Times, among the most alarmist “news” outfits in America, recently ran an op-ed headlined ‘Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore’.

The piece, written by Syracuse University Environment Professor Matthew Huber, urged Democrats to stop talking about climate change if they want to win elections. While he encouraged them to keep pursuing climate policies, he said they must focus on regaining credibility with the working class to win elections – and the working class is apparently not buying the UN’s climate narrative.

Just weeks before the General Assembly vote, even the hyper-alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) was forced to concede that its most alarmist scenarios were not grounded in reality. The outfit, long criticised for politicising science, revised its modelling that had suggested temperature increases of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Those scenarios are now gone.

President Trump responded to the news on Truth Social with his characteristic style. “GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that ‘Climate Change’ is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!” he said.

Trump and Experts Pushing Back

The Trump administration has been a wrecking ball to the climate movement. Indeed, it has withdrawn from numerous UN climate agreements, including the 1992 treaty, the aforementioned UNFCCC, which underpins the whole UN climate regime. Speaking to the UN, the president himself ridiculed the climate narrative as the greatest “con job” in human history.

The administration is also ending the domestic assault on CO₂, including many of the regulations on energy production. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is even reversing the Obama-era “endangerment finding” claiming that CO₂ – the gas exhaled by all living creatures – is “pollution” that must be regulated.

Legal experts and sceptics immediately pushed back on the UN’s climate ruling, too. Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, a leading voice debunking climate alarmism, called the decision “a joke at a cosmic proportion.”

The court, he told The New American, demonstrates “zero understanding of climate science” while threatening America First policies under President Trump. “Since when has ICJ or the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proved that rising gas of life can cause all the computer model-produced imaginary disasters?” asked Soon, who has published multiple peer-reviewed studies debunking the narrative on CO₂.

Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, often dubbed the top enemy of “climate action,” was equally blunt. “Facing the insurmountable collapse of their global climate agenda … the UN ‘high court’ has ruled nations are compelled … to comply or pay ‘reparations’ and fund ‘climate justice’ programmes,” he told TNA. “Thank God for Donald Trump leading the global collapse of the UN climate bullcrap!”

Roots in Globalist Ideology

This push for a global “climate regime” to dictate policy to nations goes back decades. The UN’s climate apparatus – rooted in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and subsequent frameworks – has always been about more than temperature. It is a vehicle for socialist dreams of world government, wealth transfers from developed to developing nations and control over energy, the lifeblood of modern economies.

By demonising human emissions of CO₂ as pollution, the UN and governments are able to regulate the “gas of life” (essential for plant photosynthesis) and literally all human activity. Of course, CO₂ comprises a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, with human contributions even smaller. Indeed, human emissions of CO₂ make up a fraction of one per cent of all the “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere.

The ICJ case itself originated from a UNGA request, with broad participation from nearly 100 governments and various organisations. Joe Biden’s administration, true to form, urged a strong ruling, framing climate change as a “gravest challenge” requiring global coordination.

Now, with Trump back in office dismantling these schemes domestically and eyeing exits from international entanglements, the globalists are doubling down through global judicial and assembly manoeuvres.

Critics rightly point out the selective outrage. Communist China, the world’s top emitter by far, faces little real pressure as it continues building coal-fired power plants. Governments and tyrants ruling “developing nations” are still demanding trillions in “loss and damage” funding while building coal plants, too.

Meanwhile, Western nations are pressured to deindustrialise, accepting energy poverty in the name of climate virtue as jobs and production are shipped to China and other nations ruled by hostile tyrants. Clearly, this is not about “science,” experts say. Instead, it has all the characteristics of a scam.

Implications for Sovereignty and Economy

Despite being based on largely discredited pseudoscience and models producing endless debunked predictions, the ICJ ruling and the subsequent UNGA resolution threaten profound consequences.

Among other measures, they could justify lawsuits against US companies, increase pressure for phasing out reliable energy in the West and even justify demands for “climate reparations” from Third World dictatorships.

Self-government and individual liberty are also under threat. Without serious action from US authorities, domestic courts may cite the ruling and the UNGA resolution, eroding the US Constitution’s supremacy. The same will happen across what was once known as “Christendom” and the “Free World.”

Trump’s agenda of pursuing American energy dominance, withdrawing from UN climate schemes, and slashing regulations directly counters this – for now. But, obviously, Trump will not be in office forever. Few of his climate policies have been enshrined in law. As such, a future president can and almost certainly will embrace the UN agenda going forward, at least if Congress does not act now.

Globally, the ICJ ruling and the UNGA resolution bolster support for upcoming UN climate summits. They are also likely to fuel ever-more-draconian “Nationally Determined Contributions” under the Paris Agreement, framing them as binding obligations. Just last year, the UN climate summit adopted an agreement claiming humanity had already burned through four-fifths of its “carbon budget.”

Historical Parallels and the Path Forward

From the League of Nations to the United Nations, internationalist bodies have sought to subordinate nations and people to international law. Supposed man-made climate change serves as the perfect pretext: invisible, global, urgent, never-ending and requiring endless sacrifice from the productive West.

At least on this issue, President Trump appears to understand the stakes. What is left of the movement he built has clearly rejected the false choice between environmental stewardship and prosperity.

As even a brief overview of the evidence shows, true environmental protection flows from property rights, innovation and human ingenuity – not top-down edicts from The Hague or the UN headquarters in New York City.

Trump’s actions are not enough to stop this global agenda. Americans must demand that Congress reject any implementation of the ICJ ruling or the UNGA’s resolution. The US government should reaffirm non-recognition of ICJ jurisdiction, defund related UN programmes, expose the faulty science behind the scheme and ultimately abandon the UN entirely. States can and should lead the way by prioritising affordable energy and rejecting the abuse.

The UNGA vote and ICJ opinion are symptoms of a much deeper problem: the erosion of national sovereignty in favour of unaccountable global governance. This latest salvo should serve as a powerful reminder of why vigilance against the climate-industrial complex and the forces of globalism remains essential. The gas of life is not the enemy; centralised power pretending to save the planet at the expense of liberty is.

It is true that the climate movement is under tremendous pressure. But the battle is far from over, as the ICJ and UNGA made clear with their latest moves. With public scepticism rising and a resolute president in office, the globalists’ “legal” manoeuvres may ultimately backfire, accelerating the very collapse of their narrative. But that will take work. Sovereignty, science and sanity can still prevail – if Americans insist on it and get busy.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2026/07/23/un-declares-every-nation-has-a-legal-duty/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post UN declares every nation has a legal duty to obey its climate decrees – or face the consequences appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The Climate and Nature Bill has its second reading in Parliament on 24 January 2025. If it becomes law, it will bring in compulsory re-wilding of more than 30% of the UK and place controls on travel and consumption.

“You may think that all the bills that have gone through Parliament already in the last six months have been disastrous and have been an attack on our way of life our culture and our economy. But there’s something else coming up which is as bad or even worse as everything that has gone before. And this is something called the Climate and Nature Bill,” David Kurten said.

“It will destroy the economy, essentially, and it will give the Government powers over your private property …  Because of [something to do with] the climate or … nature then the government can essentially take your property,” he warned.  “Because everything that happens in the country will have to be beholden to the targets in this Climate and Nature Bill.”

Below is a summary of David Kurten’s video.  But before we get to that, a brief mention of the UK constitution.

The UK constitution is a complex system of rules and principles that govern the United Kingdom (“UK”). Unlike many other countries, the UK has no single codified constitution document.  The sources of the UK constitution are Acts of the UK Parliament, conventions, common law and authoritative works such as Albert Venn Dicey.

The UK constitution puts the people in charge and limits the powers of the Government. The legislature, being the House of Parliament and the House of Lords, are permitted to make legislation but they are subject to constitutional law.  As William Keyte explained to Richard Vodes in 2023, “Constitutional law … absolutely limits what [the Government] can do legitimately.  They could still go outside that but then they would be acting criminally.”

Magna Carta (1215), one of the sources of the UK Constitution which Keyte views as THE constitutional document, is still binding on the UK government today. Also known as the Great Charter of Freedoms (or Liberties), it established the principle that the king and government were subject to the rule of law and limited their powers.  “[Magna Carta] leaves [the people] to be self-masters, essentially, and the government to get out of the way and leave them alone,” Keyte said. “[Magna Carta] elevates the people above their own government.”

Further resources: Common Law Constitution

Magna Carta explicitly refers to the Spiritual Constitution and the Temporal Constitution.  The spiritual realm refers to the Christian church.   The temporal realm refers to secular or worldly matters.  The Commons refers to the people.

In the context of the English Bill of Rights, “Lords Spiritual,” “Lords Temporal,” and “Commons” refer to bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords, secular members of the House of Lords and elected representatives of the people, forming the House of Commons, respectively.

Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British

This is the meaning of the paragraph at the beginning of the Climate and Nature Bill.

Both King Charles and the Government are subject to the rule of law and the constitution. If they are found to be acting outside what the constitution permits, they are acting criminally.

Magna Carta “reserves to … all Persons, as well Spiritual as Temporal, all their [free Liberties] and free Customs, which they have had in time passed.

“And all these Customs and Liberties aforesaid, which We have granted to be holden within this our Realm, [as much as appertaineth to Us and our Heirs, we shall observe; and] all Men of this our Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, [as much as in them is, shall observe the same against all Persons, in like wise.”

In other words, neither the king nor the government, nor anyone else, can remove our liberties and customs that we have had for thousands of years.

The earliest surviving record of our liberties is King Alfred’s Doombook (c. 600 A.D).  It was the foundation on which Magna Carta was built. The Ten Commandments were a particularly important model for the drafting of Anglo-Saxon law codes and formed part of the preface to King Alfred’s law book, grounding the secular laws in biblical precedents. God’s law is also specifically referenced in the longest Anglo-Saxon law code, which was issued by King Cnut.

Rather than specifying what people can do, the majority of the Ten Commandments specify what people cannot do.  In short, if it is not prohibited by God then it is one of our liberties or inalienable rights.

Read more: Charles III and Keir Starmer have violated the rule of law and must step down

If, through the Climate and Nature Bill, King Charles and the Government remove any of our ancient liberties or customs then the monarch and the Government are acting unconstitutionally, and criminally.

Keep in mind what our liberties and inalienable rights are as we read a summary of David Kurten’s explanation of what hundreds of politicians are attempting to push through as legislation.

Table of Contents

The Climate and Nature Bill: An Overview

The Climate and Nature (“CAN”) Bill, first introduced by former Green Member of Parliament (“MP”) Caroline Lucas, has been reintroduced by Liberal Democrat MP Ros Savage and is set to have its second reading in the House of Commons next Friday, 24 January.

The Bill has gained significant support from more than 190 politicians across the Commons, Lords and local councils, largely due to lobbying efforts by the non-governmental organisation Zero Hour.  (You can see a full list of MPs supporting the CAN Bill HERE and view an interactive map of MPs supporting the Bill HERE.)

The Bill builds on the existing Committee on Climate Change, established in 2008, and would give this committee more power to dictate the country’s climate strategy and targets.  It aims to require the UK to achieve climate and nature targets, giving the Secretary of State the duty to implement a strategy to achieve these targets, and establishing a climate and nature assembly to advise on the strategy.

It would also grant the government powers to take control of private property if deemed necessary for climate or nature-related reasons, potentially destroying the economy and undermining private property rights.

The ultimate goal of the bill is to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, with interim targets and a binding strategy to be implemented by the Secretary of State for Climate.  It requires the UK government to fulfil its obligations and commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, which involves cutting carbon dioxide emissions and limiting global temperature increases.

The CAN Bill aims to ensure the United Kingdom reduces its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to “Net Zero” by 2030, at a rate consistent with limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5° C compared to pre-industrial levels.

Its objectives are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (“IPPC’s”) definition of pre-industrial levels, which dates back to around 1750, a time after the medieval warm period and before the mini ice age.

Nature and Biodiversity Provisions

In addition to addressing climate change, the Bill also focuses on nature and biodiversity, with the government aiming to halt and reverse its overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the UK and overseas.

The Government’s objectives include increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species populations, habitats and ecosystems, with the goal of putting nature on the path of recovery by 2030.

It references the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which is a framework for meeting biodiversity targets and objectives. However, the bill’s measures may not effectively address the issues of nature and biodiversity, and may even exacerbate the problems.

For example, the implementation of the bill’s objectives may involve measures that could have unintended consequences, such as the destruction of habitats and the killing of birds due to the construction of wind turbines and solar panels.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework considers biodiversity fundamental to human well-being and a healthy planet and economic prosperity, and is being taken seriously by politicians who are introducing legislation to meet its goals.

The framework recognises and considers diverse value systems and concepts, including the rights of nature and the rights of “Mother Earth,” which is being used as the basis for a bill in the UK that would require the country to obey this framework.

2030 Agenda and Rewilding Implications

The CAN Bill is tied to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is a way to introduce communism and take away property rights under the guise of sustainability and a climate emergency.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has 23 targets, including ensuring that at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration by 2030. This target is about rewilding and giving the government control over land, which would be particularly destructive in densely populated countries like the UK, where over 80% of the land is used for agriculture.

The CAN Bill aims to achieve sustainability targets by 2030 and additional targets by 2050, which may be destructive to the agricultural sector.  It would give the Committee on Climate Change the power to tell the Secretary of State for Climate to requisition land and rewild it, potentially stopping agriculture on certain lands.  The implementation of this bill would be devastating to farmers, farms and agriculture in the UK, which is already under attack through inheritance tax and extra business taxes.

Impacts on Homes, Consumption and Personal Freedom

Homeowners may be required to demolish and rebuild their houses to meet energy efficiency standards, with the possibility of remote control over energy usage.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s Target 16 aims to encourage sustainable consumption choices, reduce global consumption footprint and minimise waste by 2030, which may involve legislation and regulations to enforce lower consumption.

The World Economic Forum has expressed desires to limit meat consumption, private car ownership, air travel and clothing purchases, which could lead to a loss of individual liberty and freedom.

The implementation of 15-minute cities may restrict car travel, promoting active travel like walking and cycling, and limiting access to public transport for long-distance travel.

The proposed limits on clothing purchases are an overreach, infringing on individual freedom and the free market.

The overall goal of these measures is to reduce waste and promote sustainability, but they could, and will most likely, go too far, resembling communism and restricting personal choice.

Economic and Societal Consequences

The CAN Bill will be extremely destructive to the economy and way of life, as it will give the government power to essentially destroy private property and “decarbonise” the economy by getting rid of all carbon-based energy, including imports of gas and LNG from overseas.

The bill will restrict people’s freedom to decide what to do with their own money and use the free market, and will instead allow the government to control the economy.

It will have a devastating impact on the economy, potentially leading to its collapse, and will leave people with limited options for making a living, such as growing their own vegetables and selling them.

It’s worth noting the hypocrisy of those people who are pushing for the Bill.  They will be the same people who attend climate summits and global summits and are often the most wasteful, using private jets to travel to these events four or five times a year.

We are at a crucial moment to stop the Bill from progressing through Parliament.  To stop the bill, write to your MP and ask them to vote against it on 24 January.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/01/19/can-bill-will-end-private-property/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post The Climate and Nature Bill will destroy the UK economy and end private property appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

BAKU, Azerbaijan — The United Nations narrative and agenda on alleged man-made “climate change” are coming apart with the election of President Donald Trump and growing awareness among governments and young people, argued market-oriented environmental leader Craig Rucker in an interview with The New American magazine Senior Editor Alex Newman at the UN COP29 climate conference. Rucker, the founder and chief of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), noted that very few national leaders attended this year’s UN summit.

And as young people learn the facts about the UN’s endless series of failed predictions, it becomes easy for them to see the manipulation, he added. Rucker mentioned several conversations with delegates from governments of developing countries who have lost confidence in the UN process. Many of them, he said, are even pro-Trump.

Governments including those in Argentina and Papua New Guinea do not even have negotiators at the COP29, he added.

Source:  https://rumble.com/v5qyt38-un-climate-hoax-coming-apart-says-environmental-leader.html?e9s=src_v1_mfp

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post UN Climate Hoax Coming Apart, Says Environmental Leader appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Scrutiny has intensified over the World Bank’s handling of climate funds, with a recent report by Oxfam revealing that between $24 billion and $41 billion in climate finance disbursed by the Bank over the past seven years remains unaccounted for.

This staggering amount, equivalent to nearly 40% of all climate funds disbursed by the Bank during this period, raises serious questions about transparency and accountability.

The World Bank has pledged over $100 billion to combat climate change, but a new report by Oxfam found that up to $41 billion of this spending is “effectively unaccounted for” due to poor record-keeping by the World Bank.

A World Bank insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested the figure for the missing money “could be twice or 10 times more.”

“All the figures are routinely made up,” the source said. “Nobody has a clue about who spends what.”

Oxfam’s report, titled ‘Climate Finance Unchecked’, was published on 17 October ahead of COP29 in Azerbaijan which is currently taking place, and during which climate finance is taking centre stage.

The report alleges that the World Bank’s current approach to tracking climate finance is flawed and makes it impossible to verify its expenditures and impact.  Specifically, the Bank’s accounting system, which tracks climate finance at the time of project approval rather than project completion, makes it difficult to verify how funds were spent.

Oxfam’s investigation revealed that obtaining even basic information on how the World Bank is using climate finance was painstaking and difficult.

“We had to sift through layers of complex and incomplete reports, and even then, the data was full of gaps and inconsistencies. The fact that this information is so hard to access and understand is alarming – it shouldn’t take a team of professional researchers to figure out how billions of dollars meant for climate action are being spent. This should be transparent and accessible to everyone, most importantly communities who are meant to benefit from climate finance,” Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington D.C. Office, said.

The World Bank’s centrality to climate finance makes its lack of transparency all the more troublesome, according to Oxfam, which argues that the bank’s claims of ambition are impossible to verify without more precise and transparent accounting methods.

Oxfam estimates that the difference between budgeted and actual expenditures on climate finance amounts to tens of billions of dollars over six years. And the World Bank’s opacity in accounting methods has led to concerns about mismanagement, corruption and the potential diversion of funds away from their intended purpose.

Oxfam’s findings have sparked calls for reform, with demands for the World Bank to improve its record-keeping practices and provide greater transparency and accountability. As the international community gathers at COP29, the need for robust climate finance tracking and reporting has never been more pressing.

Calls for reform are growing, with demands for improved transparency and accountability from the World Bank.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/11/17/scrutiny-of-world-bank-intensifies/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Scrutiny of World Bank intensifies over $24 billion in unaccounted climate funds appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

A new report by Oxfam, “Climate Finance Unchecked,” has determined that the World Bank has $41 billion in unaccounted funds that were destined to fight climate change.

This figure represents 40% of all disbursed climate funds by the World Bank. Oxfam’s audit revealed that between 2017 and 2023, between $24 billion and $41 billion simply went unaccounted for and there is absolutely no record of where the money went. No one knows how the money was used as there is no paper trail revealing where the money went.

“The Bank is quick to brag about its climate finance billions —but these numbers are based on what it plans to spend, not on what it actually spends once a project gets rolling,” said Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington D.C. Office. “This is like asking your doctor to assess your diet only by looking at your grocery list, without ever checking what actually ends up in your fridge.”

The World Bank is a leader in climate finance, controlling 52% of the total flow from all multilateral banks combined. World Bank President Ajay Banga announced in December that the bank achieved 35% of its financing three years ahead of schedule. He then set a new target of 45% by 2025. The bank later said in September that it achieved 44% of climate financing to the tune of $42.6 billion. “We’re putting our ambition in overdrive,” Banga said.

The bank acknowledged that it was difficult to keep track of its 800 climate financing projects but offered no insight into the missing funds. “It is clear that no one — including the Bank — has any real idea of how many billions of dollars are going to which climate actions,” the Oxfam report said.

Yet, climate activists are demanding $5 trillion in ANNUAL financing for the Global South to pay toward climate debt. Where did the $41 billion go? That large of a sum simply cannot be lost in a mere paperwork or oversight error. The climate change agenda has become a slush fund for the elite who will continue to fund this agenda without taking any responsibility for where the funds go or if they’re actually altering the climate in any meaningful way.

Source:  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/world-bank-missing-41-billion-in-climate-funds/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post World Bank Missing $41 Billion in Climate Funds appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Source:  https://substack.com/home/post/p-149928719

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post The weaponization of weather: When ‘climate control’ is mass marketed as ‘climate change’ appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

According to a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in May 2024, “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems.”

The authors, Andy May and Marcel Crok, argue that the sceptical position on dangerous man-made climate change is supported by a comprehensive literature review.  In other words, those who are disparagingly labelled by the establishment as “climate change deniers” have credible evidence on their side.

Writing an overview of their paper, May and Crok said:

The case that human greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) control the climate as claimed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) or that the resulting climate change is dangerous, is very weak.

How do we show that assertion is weak? There are many options. The AR6 WGI [Working Group I] and WGII reports define climate change as the global warming since 1750 or 1850 … The Little Ice Age, a phrase rarely used in AR6, extends from about 1300 to 1850. It was a very cold and miserable time for humanity, with a lot of well-documented extreme weather in the historical record from all over the Northern Hemisphere. It was also a time of frequent famines and pandemics. We show that arguably today’s climate is better than then, not worse.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May Petrophysicist, 30 May 2024

May and Crok’s paper is behind a paywall.  However, they have made the submitted version, which contains all the changes suggested by the peer-reviewers, publicly available: See HERE.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems

The main argument made in May and Crok’s paper is that the evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) to support the claim that human-caused climate change is dangerous is not convincing.

Firstly, the IPCC claims that human greenhouse gas emissions are the “main driver” of warming since 1979, but this is disputed. Natural climate oscillations like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”) can explain a significant portion of the 20th century warming.

The AMO is a cyclic phenomenon of sea surface temperature (“SST”) anomalies in the North Atlantic Ocean. It has a significant impact on global weather patterns. The theoretical measure of the variability of the SST of the North Atlantic Ocean is called the AMO index.

The AMO index oscillates between positive and negative phases. During the positive phase, the North Atlantic Ocean experiences warm SSTs, while during the negative phase, SSTs are cooler.  The AMO index is associated with shifts in hurricane activity, rainfall patterns and intensity, as well as changes in fish populations.

In their paper, May and Crok “detrend” the AMO index, i.e. plot the raw data rather than show the data as a trend line, and compare it to the UK Met Office’s HadCRUT4 detrended records (see below).

The paper noted:

There are several key features displayed in Figure 2. First, we observe that the secular trend in the AMO of 0.3°C is about 30% of the warming observed globally in the 20th century.33 Next we observe that the warming period from 1980 to 2005 coincides with an upturn in the AMO index. The AMO index has been traced to 1567AD, thus it is a natural oscillation. These observations cast some doubt on the AR6 claim that all 20th century warming is due to human influence and there is no net natural impact. 34 The second feature we will point out in Figure 2 is that the full AMO climate cycle is 60-70 years, and it matches the estimated global temperature changes in the 20th century.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

Secondly, the IPCC’s evidence for human influence, such as the “atmospheric fingerprint,” is disputed and the statistical methods used are questioned. Climate models also have issues, overestimating tropical tropospheric warming compared to observations.

The paper raises questions about the statistical methodology used by the IPCC to justify the “anthropogenic fingerprint” and argues that the statistical underpinnings of the anthropogenic fingerprint are seriously flawed.

The paper also discusses discrepancies between climate models and observations, particularly in the tropical troposphere. It points out that most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (“CMIP”) and IPCC climate models overestimate warming in the tropical middle troposphere by a statistically significant amount.

May and Crok argue that there is no clear evidence of unusual or dangerous weather or climate events that can be definitively attributed to human-caused climate change. It cites trends in extreme weather events like hurricanes and droughts, which are either flat or declining, as well as declining economic losses from weather disasters as a fraction of GDP. This lack of clear evidence challenges the IPCC’s conclusions about the direct impact of human activities on extreme weather events.

In conclusion, the authors note that climate change, whether natural or human-caused, has both benefits and costs, but the IPCC only examines the downside risks and ignores the potential benefits, such as increased plant growth from higher CO₂ levels.

Clearly, there are two sides to climate change … Warmer temperatures and more CO2 will mean more food at a lower price for nearly everyone, but in some areas, drought will increase and in others additional precipitation will cause flooding. However, with modern technology and cheap energy, we can build aqueducts to bring water to dry areas and build dikes and seawalls to protect areas prone to flooding. Sea level rise is currently a very modest two millimetres per year, it may be accelerating at about 0.02 millimetres per year per year, 72 but the rise in the next century will be less than a foot, about a third of the normal average ocean daily tide.

Conclusions, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

They also point out that “fossil fuels” are not the problem they are made out to be and reducing them to zero will devastate economies and hurt the poor the most:

Currently fossil fuels supply about 80% of our energy, reducing this to zero rapidly will devastate the world economy and cause widespread suffering, especially for the poor.

Modern global warming, since 1950, has reduced GDP by less than 0.5%, a trivial amount given that the economy has grown 800% in that time.75 Using IPCC scenarios, Lomborg estimates that economic growth will decline from 450% to 434% over the 21st century. Will anyone notice?

The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist and likely cannot be built in a short time. Current realistic estimates of future energy use suggest that fossil fuels will still supply half our energy in 2050 and beyond.77 Yet, no credible evidence exists that this is a problem or will become a problem. Recent research into climate change has suggested that nature plays some role, and certainly greenhouse gas emissions may play some role as well. What we do not know is how much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes to our economy are justified until we can figure this out.

Conclusions, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

In the abstract for the paper, the authors had already explained:

Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming. Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.

Abstract, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

There has been some criticism of May and Crok’s paper which the authors have addressed.  You can read their rebuttal on May’s website HERE.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/09/09/co2-and-warming-climate-are-not-problems/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems, peer-reviewed paper says appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

There is nothing new about fear-mongering propaganda being disseminated by politicians and corporate media, but they are now joined by “scientists.”

A fair amount of catastrophic climate change propaganda has made its way into the scientific method and perhaps in no venue more clearly than the Planetary Boundaries framework, Dr. Jessica Weinkle writes and explains where it comes from and what is driving the narrative.

Last month we published an article that brought attention to the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (“FAO’s”) roadmap to achieve its “global commitment to transform agrifood systems.”  The FAO is an agency of the United Nations.

To publicise this scheme, in January, FAO chief economist Maximo Torero Cullen said a roadmap is necessary because “we are violating six of the nine planetary boundaries.”

In September, 20 scientists funded by the European Research Council, the German government, the Carlsberg Foundation and the Volkswagen Foundation published a paper “establishing” 9 planetary boundaries. They determined that 6 of their 9 boundaries had been “crossed.”

As we read Dr. Weinkle’s article below about what is behind the Planetary Boundaries narrative, we should bear in mind that she also writes for The Breakthrough Institute, whose funders include some of the usual suspects driving the false climate change crisis narrative, such as Profiteer Bill Gates (see ‘About the Author’). Why is this relevant? For one thing, while people may feel free to expose nefarious actors, there is the possibility that this freedom might be limited to those who do not fund them.

How Planetary Boundaries Captured Science, Health, and Finance: The Technological Façade Hiding a Normative Empire

By Dr. Jessica Weinkle, 14 June 2024

From his perch overlooking the global community, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that the world is on the “highway to climate hell.” The president of the United States has likewise threatened that denying the impacts of climate change means condemning Americans to “a dangerous future.” Former Secretary of State John Kerry has scorned unnamed demagogues slowing the process of decarbonisation.

Overblown rhetoric from the political class is nothing new. But now, the politicians have a fresh cheering section: a cohort of scientists who have set aside rational deliberation about methodology and findings in favour of empathic allyship with advocate researchers. A leading climate psychologist, for example, has argued that those not afflicted with climate anxiety must be in denial, leaning on faulty “rationalisations against existential terror of annihilation.”

Such arguments suggest that a fair amount of propaganda has made its way into the scientific method – and perhaps in no venue more clearly than the Planetary Boundaries framework.

Advocates have positioned the framework as a functional approach to organising society within the (perceived) limits of Earth’s ecology and human ingenuity. Although wrapped in a façade of technical exercise, the framework is scaffolded by the values and assumptions of the model creators. More than an impartial application of science, it serves as a vehicle for political messaging while maintaining an air of objectivity.  By understanding where it came from, we can see the path back to scientific integrity and rational deliberation.

The Planetary Boundaries Enterprise

On the surface, Planetary Boundaries and its various derivatives seem scientific. They appear in notable scientifically-oriented journal outlets like Nature and Science, and they tend to involve lots of complicated calculations and formulas.

The framework posits nine thresholds under which “humanity can operate safely.” These range from climate change to ocean acidification to rates of biodiversity loss. If any of the boundaries (or perhaps some of the boundaries) are transgressed (for some unknown amount of time) the Earth will no longer be safe (at some unknown point in the future).

There is some logic here, but the framework is inherently arbitrary. It conflates regional and global scales, which artificially constrains policy options and presents in technocratic form a moral philosophy for social and economic development. Planetary boundaries embed the ideas of tipping points, tipping elements and tipping cascades, which also suffer from muddle; indeed, there is “no rapidly approaching planetary cliff.”

The idea of Planetary Boundaries first appeared in 2009 in the journal Ecology & Society as a “proof of concept paper.” The paper’s lead author, Johan Rockström, had joint association with the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University and the Stockholm Environment Institute (“SEI”) supported by the Swedish government.

The framework follows an “overshoot and collapse” trajectory. This means that a variable of interest – say pollution – increases beyond some limit in a system’s capacity, at which point the whole system collapses. In this way, Planetary Boundaries is a re-statement of neo-Malthusian ideas of physical limits to the growth of humanity. In fact, the author team explicitly situated its framework as a follow-on to the ‘Limits to Growth’ modelling exercise developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s for the Club of Rome, a group of elite entrepreneurs and scientists concerned that population growth would necessarily lead to ecological problems.

Yet framing population as a problem has never gone well for society. The publication of the Limits to Growth report in 1972 and broader efforts by the neo-Malthusian community on both sides of the Atlantic helped fuel fears that population growth would lead to catastrophe and set the stage for various population control measures around the world, including forced sterilisation.

More recently, the Club of Rome – with the Stockholm Resilience Centre and a few others – took up the Planetary Boundaries cause in an explicit campaign, called Earth4All, to transform the global economic system to provide an “equitable future on a finite planet” through wealth redistribution, “stabilising the world’s population,” and degrowth. Meanwhile, another body, the Earth Commission, which Rockström co-directs, has busied itself with developing ever more boundaries humans should not cross.

And it is this morally vexed storyline at the heart of the rallying cry for a safe and just planet that has inspired crowds to march.

Cascades of Capture

Despite the chilling relationship between Planetary Boundaries, neo-Malthusianism, and population control, the concept has been happily taken up by a range of groups working to transform institutions like health, banking and finance towards the Earth’s Commission’s ideals.

These institutions tend to zero in on one of the two forces neo-Malthusians have seen as sources of impending doom: population and economy.

I’ll start with concerns about population growth which underpins the concept of “planetary health.”

The original use of the term “planetary health” is attributed to Friends of the Earth in 1980, who amended the World Health Organisation’s 1946 definition of health so that that “health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and ecological well-being and not merely the absence of disease – that personal health involves planetary health.”

The term then became popularised in 2015 by a joint project between The Lancet, an elite health science publication, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The project asserts that “we have been mortgaging the health of future generations to realise economic and development gains” – an idea also explicitly included in the Planetary Boundaries framework.

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has since made it his mission to “develop the idea of planetary health – the health of human civilizations and the ecosystems on which they depend.” His ideas are embodied in The Lancet Planetary Health journal, which aims to support “radical civilisational transformation” and create a “safe and just space for humanity, respecting planetary boundaries.”

Horton celebrates the work of Extinction Rebellion (“XR”) in calling on medical professionals to join the cause and “inject moral force into the political debate on climate action.”  In writing about an influential journal article on ocean circulation, XR’s Roger Hallam said “repressed scientist” who say that the planetary situation “‘kind of scary’” are “like saying Auschwitz was ‘kind of unpleasant’.”

The problem in the simile should be apparent. The Holocaust produced millions of deaths of documented deaths at the hands of a formal genocide government policy. The research Hallam was critiquing used a computer model to estimate ocean cycling 2,800 “model years” into the future to say something about tipping in the present. But Hallam’s extreme view is supported by a science-like narrative of an earth on the brink of collapse that is legitimised by The Lancet’s advocacy-oriented editor.

If you think the problem is just academic journals and advocates, think again. In an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) report from 2022, the authors used the term to describe the result of resilient development.

The IPCC’s footnotes demonstrate, however, the term’s ambiguity.

• Planetary health is defined as “a concept based on the understanding that human health and human civilisation depend on ecosystem health and the wise stewardship of ecosystems.”
• Ecosystem health is defined as “a metaphor used to describe the condition of an ecosystem, by analogy with human health.”

That is, “planetary health” is what results from the kind of development that writers of the IPCC report like and what they like is the Planetary Boundaries worldview.

Planetary Boundaries Used in Banking and Finance

Now, to banking and finance – important institutions in economic growth.

The Network for Greening the Financial System (“NGFS”) is a coalition of central banks that pressures the banking sector and its regulators into meeting Paris Agreement goals. NGFS  directly invokes the idea of Planetary Boundaries in its development of scenarios for use in bank stress testing.

The NGFS scenario narratives (below left) get their names from an article by the Planetary Boundaries authors that appeared in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) in 2018. The article has one of the highest attention scores – that is, it was mentioned a lot in the news, blogs, and policy documents – in all of science.In the article, the authorsset out two trajectories for humanity: a stabilised Earth and the Hothouse Earth which is “likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many.” It poses severe risks, the authors continue, “for health, economies, political stability (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.” An image from the PNAS article (below right) was used in the NGFS scenario’s technical documentation illustrating the fingerprints of Planetary Boundaries in the development of the scenarios (I added the pink circles in the images below).  NGFS also uses the planetary boundary framework in the development of scenarios central banks can run to assess nature-related economic and financial risk.

Planetary Boundaries is also the guiding framework for the Science Based Targets Network – an initiative combining the Earth Commission with the founders of the Science Based Target Initiative (“SBTi”). The latter, SBTi, is itself wrapped up in a complicated network of coalitions that have been the source of much ire for US legislators concerned with potential antitrust violations occurring in environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) and sustainable investing activities.

And so, it is from here that we find leading advocacy organizations promulgating ideas of systemic financial risk caused by climate change and policy entrepreneurs under the auspices of the Financial Stability Board building a case for corporate disclosure on the foundation of Planetary Boundaries.

Concentrated power

In 2018 Rockström became a co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (“PIK”), taking over for another Planetary Boundaries co-author, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who founded PIK shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Schellnhuber is now a director of IIASA in Austria.

This is not just an administrative detail or notch on some researcher’s CV. It highlights the formidable power in how the world has come to understand climate change and paths to mitigation. PIK and IIASA are tightly knit groups, and IIASA’s founding is bound up in the founding of the Club of Rome, with the same leading figure working to establish both in the 1970s.

On its website, PIK explains that everything the institution does is guided by “the integration of Planetary Boundaries and Global Commons.” This work includes the development of “transformation pathways” for climate protection and sustainable development. Planetary boundaries, though, are misleading and tied up in various histories of social control. Yet the narrative has not moved on.

The difficulty in doing so is in no doubt partly due to the conflicts of interest in the organisation of climate change science. The same people are prioritising scenarios for the international research community, writing government science assessments, working in advocacy and consulting with industry. I have discussed such conflicts at the bottleneck of global climate change science research, where those prioritising climate scenarios for use in the research community are also involved with creating scenarios for the financial sector.

Indeed, the NGFS scenarios creation team included those at PIK and IIASA.  If everything PIK does is guided by Planetary Boundaries, then what they create for NGFS is as well. Telling is that the team embedded the damage functions created by PIK researchers into the NGFS scenarios and at the heart of the damage function is the notoriously extreme emission scenario developed by IIASA.

What the Planetary Boundaries framework thus represents is more than an appeal for environmental protection. It is a play for political power over social, economic, and governing systems. Many have observed that because models engage assumptions, they are inherently linked to the cultures and interests of the institutions that build them. As one early critique of the IIASA model put it, “Models are more symbolic vehicles for gaining authority than objective technical frameworks.”

It is possible to be both deeply desirous of better protections for the Earth’s ecological systems and biodiversity and extremely turned off by systems of power masquerading as science.

I certainly am.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/06/26/planetary-boundaries-to-stabilise-population-growth/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post The climate fear-mongering enterprise behind the Planetary Boundaries to stabilise population growth appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

An internal document, a Department of Agriculture briefing paper, reveals that a €200m budget is needed to cull 65,000 cows every year for three years to meet climate goals – that’s 195,000 cows in total.

Culling 200,000 Irish dairy cows is the wrong way to meet Ireland’s climate targets, the president of Macra na Feirme, Elaine Houlihan has said. Macra creates a platform that allows young farmers’ voices to be heard. Houlihan described the report which contained the proposal as a “complete kneejerk report.”

Houlihan also pointed out: “Has anyone taken a step back and seriously looked at what signals these reports focusing on culling send to young farmers considering entering a sector? Are Ireland and Europe serious about Generational Renewal?”

Any plan to cull Ireland’s dairy herd must be voluntary, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (“ICMSA”) has warned. ICMSA is a lobbying group that represents all farmers in Ireland, particularly dairy and livestock.

ICMSA President Pat McCormack told Newstalk Breakfast on Tuesday: “If there is to be a scheme, it needs to be a voluntary scheme. That’s absolutely critical because there’s no point in culling numbers from an individual who has borrowed on the back of a huge financial commitment on the back of achieving a certain target that’s taken from under him.”

Further reading:

• 200,000 cows to be culled in order to meet climate targets, Newstalk Breakfast, 30 May 2023
• Cull of Ireland’s dairy cattle for climate targets should be ‘voluntary’, farmers say, Irish Times, 30 May 2023

What climate alarmists and those who seek to profit from the agenda refuse to acknowledge is that the livestock/methane narrative is a misconception.  The proponents of the climate agenda consistently portray cows as pumping additional methane into the atmosphere. This is simply not true.  Ruminant livestock methane is virtually irrelevant as a greenhouse gas.  And methane from cattle is part of the biogenic carbon cycle which has been around since life began.

What climate alarmists and those who seek to profit from it also refuse to acknowledge is that farming is crucial not only to avoid starving populations but it is also vital for livelihoods and economies. Ireland has long relied on farming, alongside multinational investment, to drive its economy. Irish beef and dairy brands such as Kerrygold and Pilgrims Choice are among its most successful exports.  Cows, however, now represent something else: the politics and greed of a manufactured “climate crisis.”

Related: Destruction of farming is front and centre in the fight against climate change, John Kerry says

In November 2021, more than 100 countries pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030 at COP26 in Glasgow in an initiative put forward by the US and the EU.  The Irish government was due to unveil its sector-by-sector climate emergency plans in the first week of November and was considering a 21% to 30% cut in carbon emissions from the agriculture sector.

Ahead of the unveiling of the sector-by-sector plans, KPMG looked at four scenarios, concluding that rural Ireland faced a €4bn hit to the economy and the loss of more than 56,000 jobs if the government opted for the 30% target.

It also warned that a 30% cut would require a 20% cut in cattle numbers, 22% of the beef herd and 18% of the dairy herd.  With 6.5 million cattle in the country according to official Central Statistics Office data, this equates to a reduction of 1.3 million of the national herd.

The lower target of 21% would mean a reduction of about 5%, or 325,000 cattle, according to the KPMG analysis.

In July last year, the government announced binding sectoral targets to slash overall carbon emissions by 51% by 2030. The agriculture sector must reduce emissions by 25% by 2030. Transport must reduce emissions by 50% and commercial and public buildings by 40%.

Tim Cullinan, the leader of the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA), said the target was about the survival of the government rather than survival of rural Ireland. “This is a potentially devastating blow for Irish farming and the rural economy,” he said.

The ICMSA called the deal a “sellout” that would make many farms unviable. Cutting emissions by a quarter will drive many farms into bankruptcy and could force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows.

Previously, the government had encouraged dairy farmers to expand to exploit the end of European Union milk quotas. Farmers invested in new equipment and the dairy herd grew by almost half in the past decade. Irish butter, cheese and other produce – 90% is exported – filled supermarket shelves around the world.

“All the talk was of what dairy could deliver for the economy and society and we did that in spades. Now it’s the bad boy,” McCormack said last year.  “The mood is hugely frustrated.  It’s very hard to quantify but there will be increased costs and reduced output.”

Sources for this article include:

• Ireland would need to cull up to 1.3 million cattle to reach climate targets, The Guardian, 3 November 2021
• Ireland targets 25% cut in agriculture emissions but farmers voice anger, The Guardian, 29 July 2022
• Irish farmers say they will be forced to cull cows to meet climate targets, The Guardian, 29 August 2022

Featured image: Size of the national herd falls for third consecutive year, Irish Farmers Journal, 19 February 2021

Source Link: https://expose-news.com/2023/06/01/irish-government-proposes-culling-200000-cows/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Irish government proposes culling 200,000 cows to meet climate targets appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

SS: Bring on the next scam/hoax, get the word out, people need to be aware, this is a move to take away whatever is left, milk the public’s remaining wealth and freedoms.

Source Link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IwAHaTJE8TLX/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Planned Climate ‘Lock Ins’ for the UK – The Proof! – IPCC Paper in the description – Funkyprepper appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.