For many people struggling to pay their power bills or having to close their business because of rising energy prices, saving the planet is a vague concept, secondary to their own financial survival.  In fact, economically viable countries demonstrate best care of the environment. Getting the balance right between development of resources and environmental stewardship presents a challenge for people, businesses and government, especially when for many youth climate change is their number one concern (surpassing terrorism, poverty and unemployment).

How policy affects Energy prices

Clearly Queensland Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk was counting on a Labor victory in the recent federal election. Labor would then be able to banish the Adani coal mine to trumpet climate change credentials alongside Al Gore. Palaszczuk paid $324,000 to bring Gore to Australia to promote his doomsday prophesies, already discredited.

Voters amongst the productive “quiet people” of this country rained on that parade, preferring jobs and development rather than empty virtue signalling. When Labor lost the election, largely thanks to Queenslanders, Palaszczuk was put on the spot. Within days the Premier ramped up the rhetoric to finalise Queensland government approvals for Adani, already languishing eight long years under a hail of green law fare, so that mining may soon be able to start.

Al Gore is in Queensland to conduct climate change training for 1,000 people from across Australia and the Pacific during Climate Change Week, where he is running a three day strategy workshop.

Therein lays the problem. We can expect more of what was voted against when inspired activists once more take to the streets and the airwaves, influencing people, business, bureaucracy and government.

What’s in store

What won’t be promoted is Al Gore’s part in the global non-profit industrial complex the Climate Reality Project, comprising 292 Global Shapers, committed to delivering leadership training in SHAPE  events around the world (such as the one in Brisbane) to learn how to lead the global fight for climate solutions. Over ten years global warming, now climate change has been systematically promoted.

For the next ten years focus is to be redirected from oil, gas and coal, to biodiversity of land and forests. The stated intention of the Intergovernment Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPCC) report in Paris in May 2019 is to set biodiversity on equal footing politically with climate change by promoting a climate emergency, catastrophe and crisis. Furthermore, eco systems are to be capitalised (i.e.financialised).

For most people, being able to pay the power bill seems a long way from inner city elites who champion the new climate economy and climate finance partnerships, of which Al Gore is a prominent front. The global non-profit industrial complex is influenced by 350.Org, Rockefeller Foundation, Global Challenge, Avaaz (active in Libya and Syria), Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Ceres, World Bank, WWF, World Economic Forum and the European Commission, amongst other partners of the Climate Reality Project: Coca Cola, Salesforce, Procter and Gamble, Reliance Industries, Oando, GMR Group, Hanwha Energy Corporation, Rosamund Zander and Yara International.

Care for the environment and protection of nature is a cover for more sinister intent: a 10 year social engineering effort using environmental and climate crisis/catastrophe/emergency as a means to achieving full blown undetected cultural change to the financialisation of nature. Companies will be able to capitalize on their implementation of the Social Capital Protocol by ensuring the finance community and capital market recognise and reward social value creation. As understood, the value of services provided by nature and biodiversity in conserving our environment will be quantified in financial terms to become an essential part of any deliberations.

Methods

Methods to be used by the global non-profit industrial complex to drive the crisis are already in evidence, including, and not limited to:

• Weaponising children as sacrificial lambs in the destruction of their own future, reminiscent of abuse meted out to elders by the Red Guard of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That was a great success! Terrorising children with threats of immanent global destruction is a form of child abuse that has led to an epidemic of depression;
• Driving and targeting female youth to lead protests (e.g. Sweden’s Greta Thunberg) – femography – to enhance appeal and reduce critical comment, while driven by adults in the background. Greta’s mother is an awarded Swedish environmental activist and Greenpeace representatives are nurturing Greta’s progress and publicity;
• Extinction Rebellion Movement – sit down protests in central cities blaming humans for the alleged destruction of the planet, ignoring ongoing improvements in environmental stewardship being undertaken in responsible economies;
• Green New Deal being pushed by particular legislators in the United States as the Trojan horse for the financialisation of nature in the new climate economy which aims to unlock institutional capital;
• Green shaming to silence firms and organisations that do not comply with demands, de-platforming and coercing banks not to fund significant projects like Adani as has already happened here;
• Climate eugenics – belief, especially amongst youth, who have been convinced that human impact is far greater to ecological devastation than corporations, the economic system itself or even the global war industry. This belief may be manifest in legislation for late term abortion and euthanasia; claims of the end of the world from population explosion and promoting the concept of humans as an existential threat to nature and biodiversity.

The quiet people going about their daily business may wonder what all this has to do with them. Well, participants in the global non-profit industrial complex are major investors in renewables, capturing much of the taxpayer subsidies, gouging profits, while being quite dishonest about the lifecycle costs of the technology they install and the environmental, biodiversity and aesthetic harm caused by large scale installations.

As a consequence of their action, energy bills go up, energy supply becomes less reliable, businesses close or move off shore, and households struggling with rapidly increasing costs default on payment. The environment may questionably be better, but the impact on ordinary families and business is quite damaging.

Cost/benefit of renewables

Most of us want to conserve the planet and the best way of doing so is to have a healthy economy. Methods for conservation need to be based on facts, rather than emotion or the religion of climate emergency.

Market manipulation is evident in coercion – green subsidies for renewables and penalties for fossil fuel users. Upfront costs of renewables are significant, the life span limited to 10-20 years with ongoing maintenance costs and the toll on birds, bats, insects and humans within range not inconsiderable for those professing to support biodiversity conservation and wellbeing.

Then there is the opportunity cost of the $3billion+ taxpayer subsidies annually invested in renewables that could go to other options – new HELE coal fired power plants for more reliable supply being built all around the world, new schools, hospitals and debt reduction.

Reality bites

Reality meets futility when 25,000 British steel workers lose their jobs because of inability to meet European carbon credit demands. Britain will still need and use steel that will now be sourced from countries with less stringent environmental standards. Similarly, Queenslanders voted for jobs and development over empty climate change virtue signalling that placed workers interests and the need for power of 300 million Indians of secondary importance.

Climate has always changed. Today is no more catastrophic than at other times, even those predicted by the great prophet Al Gore, whose prophesies failed to materialise.

On a more practical level, successful investor Warren Buffett is taking a US$10 billion punt on the future of oil and gas, buying into a US shale oil leader Anadarko at a time when the value of green technologies are rising and sentiment on hydrocarbons is bearish. (Mark P Mills, The Wall Street Journal, 20 May 2019).

Mills goes on to say that in fact, hydrocarbons are the source of 80 per cent of America’s and the world’s energy and are likely to remain so for decades to come. Wind and solar paired with batteries, are unlikely to add the 250 percent more energy to the world over the next two decades than American shale has added over the past 15 years. Energy starvation is an unacceptable market risk, as demonstrated by power failures in South Australia.

Even a 100 fold growth in electric vehicles wouldn’t displace more than 5 per cent of global oil demand in two decades.

While green advocates hope to persuade governments (taxpayers) to deploy a huge tax on hydrocarbons to ensure more green construction, wealthy nations are unlikely to be willing to subsidise expensive green tech for the rest of the world.

At least with the information above you will be forewarned, able to recognise the signs of pressure for action on climate catastrophe in the techniques used. Understand the impact it will have on you and your family, as the great climate zeitgeist ups the ante. See facts rather than be caught up in the momentum. And where possible, speak out.