It cannot be underestimated how Russia and China are always looking at a prosperous future (hence India, Indonesia and Africa in BRICS) where Europe is looking at the stagnant, volatile past (currently resembling 1930s Europe), but even more frightening is that Europe's only strategy for the future is the highly questionable Net Zero, which is an economic destroyer by any measure...
Put another way, the Reform party says the cost to the tax payer/consumer of netzero by 2050 is £2trillion. What do you think the cost to the tax payer/consumer of continuing to get energy from fossil fuels until 2050 is? This includes the subsidies, kick backs, equipment, extraction, support for prospecting, the transport, developing, marketing, smearing of green energy, lobbying, stealing, wars, costs to the environment of the emissions and BP alone still paying their shareholders $7billion in one year alone.
The cost of netzero, is not an economic destroyer by any measure and is a lot less than the cost of the highly questionable policy of continuing to fund oil cartels when we are fast approaching peak oil and rapidly accelerating climate change.
The EU is stagnant thanks to deindustrialising and reliance on the US, not any green policies. Netzero is a scam because it indefinitely postpones any meaningful action on the climate crisis and even its implementation has been procrastinated about and extended for so long. Saying it's an economic destroyer is nonsense - it's more expensive to continue to fund and support the profits of fossil fuels and animal ag/pharma than it is to use cheaper renewables and plant based food and the economic (and environmental) cost of not addressing emissions is far higher than addressing it. Netzero greenwashing has been dropped by most of the cartels anyway. BRICS have also made it clear they're putting national growth over global action on the climate crisis.
The UK has secured the raw materials deal in return for £3bn and 100 years of support. This is why Russia offered an alternative deal to the US. Trump knew he had been cheated. This has exploded in WH. The UK and Europe want to secure the deal, even if it means war on Russia.
And Glenn Diesen is on his way to exile.. because he, in contrast to most academics, adheres to serious social science methodological criteria to include the views of the other part.
Wasn´t it closer to the specific Norwegians who commit crimes against academic freedom, who had to appy for asylum?
When you say 'sustainable' format I assume you mean a mutual economic growth format without wars and sanctions? So not sustainable beyond 5-10 years when the world is significantly changed by our changing of the climate.
Daily sceptic reader eh? Toby Young et al are funded by oil giant BP and his ‘plummeting’ temperatures in the Antarctic refer to one tiny part, over a short period, due to changes in winds coming from the Pacific, while the overall picture is of rapid and alarming warming and melting. Sea levels also dip and rise in different areas, that’s why global averages are taken over long periods. Please actually look at the papers this BP shill is citing before dismissing the whole thing. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/heard-about-the-cooling-in-west-antartica?utm_source=publication-search
totally sharing your misgivings abt Daily Sceptic. however there's much t/b desired in the case of objective, factual observations and non-agenda driven recommendations. geoengineering is real and the problem of world-wide industrial waste is not being addressed. Great Barrier Rif seems to go through periods of growth/decay as a reaction to the ocean's currents and CO2 is sort of an indispensable part of our breathing system. too much CO2, the earth can't handle this y'all, let's minimise the number of people! (hi there, eugenicists).
Thank you professor Deisen. When I scroll through my morning News I always stop where I see the name "Pepe Escobar". Gracias estimados señores.
It cannot be underestimated how Russia and China are always looking at a prosperous future (hence India, Indonesia and Africa in BRICS) where Europe is looking at the stagnant, volatile past (currently resembling 1930s Europe), but even more frightening is that Europe's only strategy for the future is the highly questionable Net Zero, which is an economic destroyer by any measure...
Put another way, the Reform party says the cost to the tax payer/consumer of netzero by 2050 is £2trillion. What do you think the cost to the tax payer/consumer of continuing to get energy from fossil fuels until 2050 is? This includes the subsidies, kick backs, equipment, extraction, support for prospecting, the transport, developing, marketing, smearing of green energy, lobbying, stealing, wars, costs to the environment of the emissions and BP alone still paying their shareholders $7billion in one year alone.
The cost of netzero, is not an economic destroyer by any measure and is a lot less than the cost of the highly questionable policy of continuing to fund oil cartels when we are fast approaching peak oil and rapidly accelerating climate change.
The EU is stagnant thanks to deindustrialising and reliance on the US, not any green policies. Netzero is a scam because it indefinitely postpones any meaningful action on the climate crisis and even its implementation has been procrastinated about and extended for so long. Saying it's an economic destroyer is nonsense - it's more expensive to continue to fund and support the profits of fossil fuels and animal ag/pharma than it is to use cheaper renewables and plant based food and the economic (and environmental) cost of not addressing emissions is far higher than addressing it. Netzero greenwashing has been dropped by most of the cartels anyway. BRICS have also made it clear they're putting national growth over global action on the climate crisis.
It ain't looking good for humanity's future here.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/net-zero-is-an-industry-scam-to-fool?utm_source=publication-search
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/will-we-be-bankrupted-by-net-zero
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/is-social-media-a-blessing?utm_source=publication-search
The UK has secured the raw materials deal in return for £3bn and 100 years of support. This is why Russia offered an alternative deal to the US. Trump knew he had been cheated. This has exploded in WH. The UK and Europe want to secure the deal, even if it means war on Russia.
And Glenn Diesen is on his way to exile.. because he, in contrast to most academics, adheres to serious social science methodological criteria to include the views of the other part.
Wasn´t it closer to the specific Norwegians who commit crimes against academic freedom, who had to appy for asylum?
When you say 'sustainable' format I assume you mean a mutual economic growth format without wars and sanctions? So not sustainable beyond 5-10 years when the world is significantly changed by our changing of the climate.
there's no 'changing of the climate'. measurements give false results, islands are experiencing growth - https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/06/islands-that-climate-alarmists-said-would-soon-disappear-due-to-rising-sea-found-to-have-grown-in-size/ and antarctic temperatures have plummeted - https://dailysceptic.org/2024/12/08/dramatic-1c-plunge-recorded-in-recent-antarctica-summer-temperatures/
all-in-all no reason for alarmism - https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/11/arctic-sea-ice-polar-bears-and-coral-make-triumphant-return-to-mainstream-alarmist-headlines/
Daily sceptic reader eh? Toby Young et al are funded by oil giant BP and his ‘plummeting’ temperatures in the Antarctic refer to one tiny part, over a short period, due to changes in winds coming from the Pacific, while the overall picture is of rapid and alarming warming and melting. Sea levels also dip and rise in different areas, that’s why global averages are taken over long periods. Please actually look at the papers this BP shill is citing before dismissing the whole thing. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/heard-about-the-cooling-in-west-antartica?utm_source=publication-search
totally sharing your misgivings abt Daily Sceptic. however there's much t/b desired in the case of objective, factual observations and non-agenda driven recommendations. geoengineering is real and the problem of world-wide industrial waste is not being addressed. Great Barrier Rif seems to go through periods of growth/decay as a reaction to the ocean's currents and CO2 is sort of an indispensable part of our breathing system. too much CO2, the earth can't handle this y'all, let's minimise the number of people! (hi there, eugenicists).
And you think that the climate change is a hoax by eugenists is not agenda driven by fossil fuel and animal ag and sister pharma!
Yes geoengineering is real but it wouldn't have the observed effects.
Yes waste is a problem; doesn't mean co2 emissions aren't also a really, really big one.
The 1% responsible for 25% of emissions will do anything to stop themselves being defunded. Hence all this agenda driven confusion. I answer absolutely everything about what is factual and objective and what isn't here. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search