Article by Carl Brehmer
Au revoir, sayonara, arrivederci, auf wiedersehen, goodbye!
In 2015 the G7 leaders met in Schloss Elmau and signed a declaration that if successful will reduce the Earth’s human population to ~1 billion by the end of the 21st century, because in that document they write, “deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century.”
By “decarbonisation of the global economy” they mean banning the burning of hydrocarbons as an energy source. (They will have to be banned because people will not voluntarily abandon that which sustains their existence.) Let’s be clear, the lives of the some 7 billion people currently living on the planet are primarily sustained by the energy that is harvested from the burning of hydrocarbons. The G7 leaders gathered in Schloss Elmau, of course, vehemently deny that banning the burning of hydrocarbons for energy will cause any human hardship what so ever because they have a plan. What is their plan?
To develop and deploy, “innovative technologies striving for a transformation of the energy sectors . . .”
What “innovative technologies” are they taking about? Well, the only energy technologies that they have yet endorsed are wind, solar and biofuels, which produce intermitant, inadequate and unreliable energy. (By the way, besides their war on hydrocarbon energy they are also opposed to the use of nuclear and hydroelectric power.) The fact is, wind, solar and biofuel energy are neither new or innovative. They have been around for many years but were abandoned in favor of hydrocarbon energy because hydrocarbon energy is reliable, readily available and relatively inexpensive to convert into a usable forms of energy. As an added bonus, the primarily byproducts of burning hydrocarbons—carbon dioxide and water vapor— boost plant growth.
Here is the problem with their plan. The energy that is used to build, transport and install windmills is not wind energy. The energy that is used to build, transport and install solar panels is not solar energy. The energy that is used to produce ethanol is not ethanol. Windmills and solar panels are built, transported and installed using hydrocarbon energy and biofuels are grown and transported using hydrocarbon energy to plants that run on hydrocarbon energy. The electricity harvested from wind and solar farms can only be used on a large scale by plugging them into hydrocarbon powered electrical grids. These electrical grids can only tolerate a small percentage of wind and solar energy before they are destabilized because of the inconsistent and intermittent nature of wind and solar generated electricity. Biofuels, which take a lot of hydrocarbon energy to produce, can only be used by adding a small percentage to each gallon of gasoline, which counterproductively decreases the gasoline’s overall octane rating.
Since windmills and solar panels can only be produced using hydrocarbon energy and can only be plugged into a functioning hydrocarbon based power grid that has hydrocarbon based backup energy capacity for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow (about half of the time) and since he food that is being turned into bio-fuels can only be grown, harvested, hauled and processed in large quantities using hydrocarbon energy, mostly diesel fuel: a “zero carbon economy” would also be a zero wind, a zero solar and a zero bio-fuel energy economy. Thus a low or no “carbon economy” is simply a euphemism for returning human civilization to the brutal and short pre-industrial lifestyle that was powered by carbohydrates, i.e., the work that can either be done by human labor or by beasts of burden.
As unbelievable as it may seem, that is what the G7 leaders have planned for the mass of humanity—a lifestyle that is brutal and short, a lifestyle that is sustained by physical labor—but here is the rub. The wealthy proponents of the their agenda will go on living opulent hydrocarbon powered lifestyles without a shred of remorse. If you doubt this just remember what President Obama said to impoverished peoples of African after flying to South Africa on Air-Force One, whose jet engins emitted who knows how much “greenhouse gas”, “ . . . if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over.” (CNS News) In other words, we have no intention of letting you have what we already enjoy—the benefits of a hydrocarbon powered lifestyle.
Hypocritically the mansions of many notable proponents of the G7’s agenda were built using hydrocarbon energy and they are and will continue to be maintained using hydrocarbon energy, yet these same wealthy people say that they their goal is to achieve a “low carbon economy”? Bullshit! What they really mean is a “low carbon economy” for everyone except themselves, the “others,” the “energy poor,” the world’s poor who already live in a “low carbon economy”—those who already don’t have running potable water or a modern sewage system; those who already don’t have sturdy housing with central heating and cooling; those who already don’t have dependable adequate electricity by which they can cook instead of using dung fires; those who already don’t have refrigeration or air conditioning; those who already don’t have access to modern transportation or modern communications systems; those who already don’t have access to modern health care, all of which could be provided by the plentiful, dependable and relatively inexpensive hydrocarbon energy that the wealthy proponents of the G7’s “decarbonization agenda” already enjoy.
That is, of course, if the poor are even allowed to continue living. Forgotten seems to be the fact that the global, pre-industrial, carbohydrate-powered economy was only able to provide subsistence for about 1 billion people.
1 billion = population of pre-industrial carbohydrate powered global economy
7 billion = population of the current hydrocarbon powered global economy
7 billion – 1 billion = 6 billion less people by the end of the 21st century
If you want to see what an actual “zero carbon economy” looks like, here it is:
That’s right. The only people who do not emit carbon dioxide are the dead who are buried six feet underground. Ergo, the achievement of a “zero carbon economy” will require a massive die off of human beings—empty countrysides, empty villages, empty towns, empty cities and full cemeteries. If you think that this is overstating the intentions of the advocates of a “decarbonization agenda” just read the following:
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.” - Henry Kissinger, National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Prince Philip, quoted in the Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988
“The human race is a plague on the Earth.” “Today we are living in an era in which the biggest threat to human welfare, to other species and to the Earth as we know it might well be ourselves.” David Attenborough
“To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technology change radically, the optimum number of people to exist simultaneously [is] in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people.” Optimum Human Population Size
“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line—at about a billion years ago, maybe half that—we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” David M. Graber (National Park Service research biologist)
It would be one thing if the G7 leaders gather to discuss how to actually bring the world’s poor out of poverty by assisting in the development of infrastructure—to bring electricity, potable running water, sewage treatment, heating and cooling, refrigeration, sturdy housing, etc. to the impoverished peoples of the world as quickly as possible using the one energy source that has been proven to be up to the task, i.e., hydrocarbon energy. But alas, that is neither their intention, nor is that their occupation; they are instead single-mindedly focused on a “decarbonization” agenda that will prevent such development if it doesn’t simply eliminate the poor all together. One wonders, when they say that they intend to eliminate poverty, are they really saying that they intend to simply eliminate the poor all together?
At any rate, one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century is that it witnessed various governments around the world kill off hundreds of millions of people in the pursuit of various misguided political agendas. If the G7 leaders hold their course to “decarbonize the economy,” by the end of the 21st century that number could very well expand into the billions. It is though they are saying, “In order to save humanity we are gonna’ have to kill off ‘a lot’ of people, but what choice do we have? ‘Science’ has spoken, if left unchecked carbon dioxide will destroy the biosphere!”
Apparently the G7 Leaders were daydreaming in elementary school when the science lesson on photosynthesis was being taught:
The more carbon dioxide there is in the air the more plant biomass there is for animals to eat and the more oxygen there is for animals to breath. What more can be said? The ignorance displayed by the notion that when hydrocarbons are burned for energy the carbon dioxide thus emitted threatens to cause a mass extinction of life on planet Earth, therefore the burning of hydrocarbons for energy must be severely restricted or even banned altogether is truly breathtaking.
[JP: Why is it that political elite always end up with some plan to kill large numbers of people? What they’re planning this time around is truly insane. And so of course they blissfully go along with the idea that “the science” supports their plan, and won’t consider any alternatives – it’s not that they want to do science, it’s that they want to kill people, and so they must believe that the science (or the economy, or the race, or the God or gods, etc) provides them the justification to do it. Can you believe that we live in such an absurd world, where who are the worst of us(!) become our so-called leaders? Where people can’t do a simple thing of questioning a postulate arising out of flat Earth science, because doing so might remove the justification for engineering a plan to kill and impoverish billions of people? What a spectacularly absurd world. It exactly what Lionel Griffith said:
“They DO understand but are more interested in their not so hidden agenda than in discovering and understanding the truth. The argument over AGW (aka climate change) has gone way past innocent error, past mere fraud for personal gain, into a full force attempt to take over and, as a consequence, destroy everything that is worthwhile and good.
I will say it again: they do not mean well. They mean to do great harm to anything that is even remotely related to man’s existence as a fully functional human being. Their intent is to return us to a state less than that of a chimpanzee.
Don’t look at their words. Simply look at their actions and the necessary consequences that will result. You will thereby see their purpose.”
We have to face a stark reality: We live in a world where a large fraction and majority of other people are totally and utterly insane. The real total psychopaths are the ones at the top, who have been quoted above and by myself previously. The rest of the people who aspire to such levels of conscious psychopathy are the mass of (interestingly, liberal) supporters. One must realize that they have allies of life in one group of people, and total, absolute enemies in another.
We’ve been so naive in thinking that people simply make honest mistakes but who fundamentally wish to know better and more logical ideas and answers beneficial to reason and to life…
That is not reality at all, not in the slightest. That is not reality.
The reality is that, whatever others labels one might use, there is a force of life and merit, and there is a force of death and destruction. And those forces are INSIDE people. Some people follow the path of life and merit, while others (many others it seems, at least half) follow and express the path of death and destruction. And both sides wish to bring the expression of their path into mass manifestation.
This is a real war that is occurring. And either side does wish to kill the other. The side of life and merit doesn’t directly wish to kill the other side as that is simply not a goal of life and merit in and of itself, but the other side, being what they are and being that they are incapable of change, certainly would die by their own inability to live in a world driven by life and merit. And on the side of death and destruction…well, if you simply look at their quotes and their plans, they do quite openly wish to kill everyone.
The dialectical resolution of this war may be as the following…
thesis: life and merit
antithesis: death and destruction
synthesis: the death and destruction, by those who follow life and merit, of those who seek death and destruction; or, the death and destruction, of those who follow life and merit, by those who seek death and destruction.
One thing is known: life has continued and striven to exist and gain merit for billions of years, and has survived some of the largest planetary catastrophes generally imaginable in astrophysics. However, the forces of destruction have surely been paid their dues as this survival has come at the cost of countless millions of unique species.
Life may continue but the human species has no necessity of continuation if it doesn’t make its own survival and its intrinsic merit a paramount condition of life and existence within the species. And right now, the force of death and destruction has humanity in its sights, and is doing its best to destroy any concept of meritorious life and the value of human life and existence in general.]