United Nations Secretary-General counts on useful idiots to push Climate Change Agenda
António Guterres knows that the public can be easily manipulated and that politicians in the developing world and poor nations will cave in to the globalist agenda to make the UN a global superpower.
What is it about climate change that politicians, mainstream media and environmental alarmists want all of us to change the way we live so radically?
Their intention is certainly not a conscious concern about improving our lives. It is not to make the planet a better place to live, and it is surely not to save us all from some seemingly perpetual threat.
What the United Nations, left-wing politicians, and fake environmentalists are proposing to do is to radically change our normal human lives to a point that we will be left without a reliable energy source, to feed ourselves only with plant foods and to keep poor nations poor to save us from rising oceans, something that Al Gore warned would take place a few years ago; hurricanes which scientists cannot even predict a correct path, and heat, which no human being has a switch to control, because the main source of heat is millions of miles away above us.
The climate change fraud comes down to one reality: Not even if we had stopped emitting CO2 years ago, would we be able to stop whatever catastrophe scientists, politicians, and fake environmentalists are warning us about. In fact, politicians like to remind us that if we don’t stop polluting the planet today, the world will end in just 10-12 years.
The so-called environmental emergency has been debunked by informed opinion makers and most importantly by science. But that doesn’t stop globalists like António Guterres from demanding that people take to the streets and that governments adopt United Nations guidelines on climate change. When it comes to climate, Guterres trusts popular pressure as a catalytic force.
“Sooner or later, governments always follow public opinion, in all parts of the world. We must continue to tell the truth and trust that political systems, especially democracies, will end up fulfilling what people think is necessary,” he says.
The UN has presented what it’s considered to be a straight line towards the end of the world as we know it. Among other goals, it proposes the reduction of 45% of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and, 20 years later, in 2050, to completely eliminate such emissions. They call it carbon neutrality and explain that the amount of emissions must not exceed what the planet can absorb.
What the UN and other promoters of radical measures -such as turning the global society into a carbon-neutral one- do not explain is what source of energy will replace oil and natural gas. They do not talk about that because there isn’t one single source of energy that will be able to cheaply replace oil and natural gas so that it is accessible to everyone.
“Bring plans, not speeches,” Guterres has demanded from the leaders before the climate summit, where representatives will be obligated to commit to UN objectives.
If the United Nations plan to supposedly curb climate change -something that as we have said will not be physically possible- were fully adopted, it will condemn poor nations to remain poor, while the largest polluters on the planet, China, India and the United States, will not enforce the measures.
The factor of change, Guterres insists, is civil society. “I want the whole society to pressure governments to understand that they must go faster because we are losing the race, the consequences of natural disasters are increasingly devastating,” he warns.
At this point, any visible weather phenomena are linked to man-made climate change, even if there is no proof of it. It is like the computer models used to predict climate disasters, they are programmed to do so.
“Mother nature is angry,” Guterres emphasizes childishly.
The battle against climate change, which by the way is a constant, is like the battle against drugs, the more the bureaucracy gets involved the worse it is. But after arriving to the UN Guterres declared a battle against climate change as one of the main pillars of his mandate.
Fortunately for the free world, Donald Trump left the Paris Accord soon after being sworn in as President of the United States. The political disengagement of the United States has already meant a big blow from which the UN and other signatory members have not recovered.
Guterres, a career politician and diplomat, avoids direct confrontation with Trump. “It would be much better,” he admits, if the United States was committed, just as certain countries in Asia “stopped exporting coal.” But he clings to optimism:
“We see a lot of action from states, cities and the American business community that is producing many results. At the summit, we will have a governor of a State and very important businessmen. The experience is that governments sometimes arrive later than public opinion, but they end up changing,” he says.
The growing concern reflected in polls, major demonstrations and the emergence of youth icons such as Greta Thunberg are occurring in a context of strong political polarization.
The battle of the climate has not escaped the partisan struggle: while conservative forces question the emergency, the progressives have turned it into a flag.
“The polarization is not as strong in the climate as in other matters, such as migration, for example,” says Guterres.
“There are conservative forces that are very radical, also radical against climate action, but there are also more forces that understand that climate action is a part of their policy.”
“You cannot make the division between traditional left and right, especially in Europe, among those who are in favor or against climate action. More and more I see right-wing parties in Europe with a great understanding of the need for this action,” he insists.
In fact, it highlights the rise of environmental parties in recent elections and how only three European countries – Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – have opposed the objective of carbon neutrality in 2050.
Without entering into direct assessments of any country’s political proposals, the UN Secretary-General welcomes the momentum of economic transformation plans towards more sustainable models.
Many of them have been baptized with the Rooseveltian brand of the Green New Deal, as in the United States. There is a sharp criticism of frequent criticism of these programs: they are very expensive and more gradual approaches are necessary.
“What is the cost of natural disasters that are occurring? The biggest cost is to do nothing,” he emphasizes.
Guterres defends the impulse of fiscal reforms that favor change: “If we put a tax on coal and lower taxes on people’s income, everyone wins, the middle classes benefit more than anyone else. You can propose a green policy that at the same time obtains the support of the electorate ”. As Guterres himself describes it, the main weapon the UN intends to use against non-compliers is coercion, economic and political coercion.
“Who pays fossil fuel subsidies?” He continues. “We, who are the taxpayers, and I don’t want my tax money to increase the devastating action of the volcanoes or to end the glaciers.”
Of the risks, he insists, we no longer have to talk in the future tense, because “July has been the hottest month in history, we have had five years of temperature records, the highest CO² concentration …”. Guterres’s ignorance about the little role that CO2 plays in changing climate is amazing. Climate change cannot be measured according to the temperature readings of one summer or 10 summers. Scientists must look at historical readings that go back hundreds of years.
It is in this deceit that the UN and its political allies rely upon to prompt people to press governments. “The last heatwave in Europe killed many people, especially older people,” he warns. “We must make people understand that there is a climate emergency today, that the problem of climate change is today, that public health is threatened today, that the sea is rising today, that temperatures are already causing very serious problems”.
The same was said about global warming a few years back. Al Gore even made a movie about it and none of his ‘predictions’ came true. Hollywood has also made its part in trying to convince the world that humans are to blame for impending climate disasters and that we all must submit to the UN agenda in order to save the planet.
Ask yourself this question, how would the world be in 10 years if you could use only half of the oil or natural gas you use today? What would your life be like in 30 years without being able to use any oil and/or natural gas?
If you live in a developing country, will you be able to survive without energy?