[dailymail.co.uk] – Majority of climate scientists predict ‘catastrophic’ 3C rise in global temperature… with just 4% believing the world will meet target of limiting warming to 1.5C, survey shows
[rt.com] – COP26 will be a heady mix of climate hysteria, fear-mongering, and quasi-religious worshiping at the altar of ‘The Science’
Note that both climate scientists and Russia Today each have their own interests to guard: the scientists will be under the temptation to keep their profession in the spotlight of international attention by keep the climate change story “hot”, so to speak, and thus keeping the research grants flowing; the Russians on the other hand have an interest not to be stuck with billions worth of stranded fossil fuel assets and hence are tempted to play the climate issue down.
For mere mortals, like myself, it is extremely difficult to see through the highly politicized science debates and discern the truth.
Yet, I give the climate scientists the benefit of the doubt, for national, environmental, geopolitical and economic reasons.
National: my country, the Netherlands, is about the first to suffer, “suffer” as in “cease to exist”, if sea levels will rise significantly more than 1 m. There is hardly a country in the world that has more reason not to gamble the farm on academic questions over situations that might or might not occur in 100 year time. Take no chances.
Environment: there is no doubt that humanity has far too big a footprint on this planet, facing depletion of resources, melting of icecaps, pollution of land, air and oceans and that business as usual is out of the question.
Geopolitical/economic: Europe is our fairly new political frame of reference, and I am fine with that, always have been. Europe, that ran the global show between 1492-1939, until it was brutally shoved aside by globalist powers USA and USSR, using the UK war party around Churchill as a catalyst to get the war started on behalf of the US (forget the All-lied anti-German Nuremberg propaganda, it was all by intent, the so-called Big Three were aligned as of 1933-1934 in their geopolitical objectives, namely that the European empires had to go). A massive European geopolitical renaissance however is in the works, if all plays out well, and energy plays a crucial role for this to happen. To understand that, consider this:
[zerohedge] Rough Estimates of the Relative Standing of Great Empires: Netherlands, Britain and USA.
Elaboration on that map here:
[parisberlinmoscow] – “What Comes After the Three Anglo Empires?”
Summary: the success of the consecutive Dutch, British and American empires were to a large extent based on exploiting a new source of energy first:
– The Dutch with their windmills created the world’s first industrial area in the Zaan area, NW of Amsterdam. Its saw mills enabled the Dutch to at some point have three times more ships than then rest of the world combined, leading to massive trade monopolies and immense wealth between 1600-1750 (“Golden Age“).
– The British Empire is unthinkable without the figure of James Watt, who gave a principle known to the Romans, industrial strength. The combination of coal and steam engine, applied to machines, trains and ships, gave British society an enormous multiplier of human labor and subsequent geopolitical power and a head-start over other European powers, taking over from the Dutch after 1750 and holding global prominence until 1939.
– In North-America, in relative isolation, the Americans got hold over an even more powerful source of energy: oil and gas and applied that not only to machines, trains and ships, but also to cars, trucks and planes. By 1939, the US as a result had 29% global GDP and could plan for a global power grab and succeeded by setting Europe up for war, via pushing Britain and France into a war guarantee for Poland and when that was in place, quietly encouraged the Poles to throw the Germans out of Versailles Poland. When 100,000 German refugees had been ethnically cleansed from Poland, Germany was forced to intervene and the Americans had their desired war.
Back to energy. Stepping back from history, there is a lot to learn from this. Rule #1 in modern geopolitics is: the one who masters a new source of energy first will have a geopolitical advantage/dominance for a century or more. Oil and gas are running out and with it the power base of the Americans, bye-bye USA. There is for centuries worth of coal, but for environmental reasons a come-back is out of the question, sorry Britain. The Dutch have far better chances that their beloved windmills are in for a majestic come-back, where those iconic Dutch 30 kW saw mills are to be replaced by up to 600-1600 times more powerful electric successors of 20 MW or perhaps more [Rotterdam 50 MW].
Klimaschutz als Industriepolitische Chance | Prof. Dr. Veronika Grimm | LCOY 2021
Veronika Grimm gets it. There are several very good reasons to press ahead with the renewable energy transition, that far surpass anything that over-the-top climate toddler Greta Thunberg has to say:
– stopping climate change
– peak oil and gas are approaching fast, so we need to leave fossil fuel anyway, before it leaves us
– in line with the considerations above: having a fully-flexed renewable energy system and its corresponding industries first, ensures excellent geopolitical status for the rest of this century.