That carbon dioxide creates a greenhouse effect is a simple truth of physics. If you shine a powerful light down a glass cylinder full of air then add carbon dioxide you will find that the temperature in the cylinder increases near the bottom. CO2 creates a greenhouse effect.
The amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are sufficient to warm it up slightly. The only surprising fact about the past forty years of global warming is that so many people denied it could happen.
Who is to blame for suppressing action on global warming? Its not Trump because he wasn't in power. In Europe the individual nations have long ceded their power over global environmental strategy to the EU (Treaty on European Union, Art 191). In both the EU and the USA the large oil and car corporations actively lobbied to prevent action. The blame is clear, it was the large corporations selfishly guaranteeing their profits by buying politicians in the USA and EU. It is the usual suspects who are to blame: big business and big government. Don't let the corporate media tell you otherwise.
The Multinational Oil and Car producers waged a campaign against the whole idea of global warming that halted effective action for 40 years. The Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson famously said: "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?"[112] . See Exxon Mobile and Climate Change Controversy and Global Climate Coalition. Don't let the Corporate Media simply brush this under the carpet. In the UK they operate by suppressing the truth.
How did the carbon dioxide get into the air? Until the 1970s it was the increasing consumption of energy by individuals that caused the problem. After the 1970s the problem was largely due to increasing the population whilst continuing emissions. The industrialisation of India and China then raised per capita consumption again in the noughties.
Carbon dioxide emission is a problem with two causes: the increasing use of fossil fuels and the increasing global population.
Unfortunately the population roughly trebled between 1960 and 2010 so CO2 emissions also trebled.
This introduces a second group to blame for global warming, religious leaders and globalisers. The religious leaders want population growth and the globalisers do not want anything to interfere with the industrialisation of the globe. The globalisers are largely the giant multinational corporations, the journalists who work for their media and the usual left wing anarchists who see radical change as revolutionary opportunity.
The effect of globalisation has also been to make it appear as if developed countries are more successful at controlling emissions than is in fact the case. The UK appears to have been a paragon of action on limiting CO2 with domestic emissions falling rapidly but when offshore manufacturing is taken into account (light blue line in the graph below) our CO2 emissions were climbing rapidly until the global financial crisis in 2008.
The fall in UK emissions from 600m tons in 1990 to about 360m tons now is actually a fall to about 540m tons when imports (offshore manufacturing) are included. The figures would also have been almost 20% lower if the UK had not deliberately increased its population with mass migration. That said, the UK is now reducing CO2 emissions from all sources and should be proud of its recent record.
Tackling global warming was relatively easy in the 20th century, all that was needed was to control population growth and phase out fossil fuels. Unfortunately the powerful multinational corporations, left wing globalisers and religious leaders working through the US government and EU government stopped any worthwhile action. (It is worth reflecting on the fact that the European Movement set up the Bilderberg Group, an alliance of multinational corporates who now finance European Movement campaigns and were at the forefront of lobbying against ecological action).
What do we do now? The first step should be to stop the growth of the populations of developed countries. Developed countries consume the goods produced by the big polluters like China. Multinational business is aghast at this idea because every 1% fall in population is a 1% fall in their turnover and profits. However, it is the most developed countries that have very high CO2 output per head (when imports are included) and so will have the greatest impact on global CO2. Given that most of the population growth of developed countries is due to migration (see for instance UK Population Growth) and it is straightforward to prevent people moving from low emission countries to developed countries we can massively reduce CO2 emission growth.
The effects of stopping population growth in developed countries are much larger than they appear at first sight:
Having one less child is 25 times more effective than foregoing the use of a car because each child, on average, gives rise to an entire line of extra people.
Limiting population growth globally is also a very good idea, it will cut CO2 emissions, will allow individual prosperity to become more secure and most importantly it will stop the destruction of habitats for wild animals and plants. Limiting global population growth however is bad news for the bottom line of multinational corporations.
Once population growth is stabilised, or populations are falling, all the measures to produce energy from alternative sources other than fossil fuels will have a much greater effect.
Will we reverse CO2 emissions and reduce other resource depletion and habitat destruction? The Corporate Media will call us Luddites and racists if we try, they will try to link the sensible planning of family size to eugenics movements, the holocaust and goodness knows what else. They will say that asking women to choose fewer children is interfering with their right to choose, that ensuring the land is not totally overbuilt is racist and xenophobic. Reversing CO2 emissions is not in the short term interests of the Multinational Corporations who are increasingly setting the agenda, especially with the "plugged in" under 30s. The Corporate Media drill us with the message that if you want to decrease CO2 you must do it yourself rather than tackling its root cause: the profligacy of multinational corporations and population growth.
You can see the effects of Corporate pressure from a survey of school textbooks on climate change. The obvious most effective action - having one less child - is not mentioned at all:
It is so easy to manipulate school children. Adults should be angry.
We have all known for years that Corporate power has been growing unchecked yet their media has suppressed this. Even after the bankers got away with stealing scores of billions of pounds the corporate media still describes any criticism of corporate power as a conspiracy theory. Even when it is obvious that population growth, multinational trade and extreme internationalism is responsible for climate change the young have been turned away from the true culprits to attack the domestic behaviour of their own fellow citizens.
The power of the Media industry is bewildering at times. Multinational Corporations and International banks have damaged the planet, perhaps beyond the point of no return and have stolen scores of billions from ordinary citizens yet their media can still persuade young people that they are paragons of globalizing virtue.
22/04/19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why we should be angry with the Green Party: The Green Party lost the battle.
More on Corporate power: The Great War: Corporatism vs Freedom.
More on resource depletion: We are running out of water in the UK
What the Bank of England and Treasury believe: Doubling GDP means doubling the population.
The amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are sufficient to warm it up slightly. The only surprising fact about the past forty years of global warming is that so many people denied it could happen.
Who is to blame for suppressing action on global warming? Its not Trump because he wasn't in power. In Europe the individual nations have long ceded their power over global environmental strategy to the EU (Treaty on European Union, Art 191). In both the EU and the USA the large oil and car corporations actively lobbied to prevent action. The blame is clear, it was the large corporations selfishly guaranteeing their profits by buying politicians in the USA and EU. It is the usual suspects who are to blame: big business and big government. Don't let the corporate media tell you otherwise.
The Multinational Oil and Car producers waged a campaign against the whole idea of global warming that halted effective action for 40 years. The Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson famously said: "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?"[112] . See Exxon Mobile and Climate Change Controversy and Global Climate Coalition. Don't let the Corporate Media simply brush this under the carpet. In the UK they operate by suppressing the truth.
How did the carbon dioxide get into the air? Until the 1970s it was the increasing consumption of energy by individuals that caused the problem. After the 1970s the problem was largely due to increasing the population whilst continuing emissions. The industrialisation of India and China then raised per capita consumption again in the noughties.
Carbon dioxide emission is a problem with two causes: the increasing use of fossil fuels and the increasing global population.
Unfortunately the population roughly trebled between 1960 and 2010 so CO2 emissions also trebled.
This introduces a second group to blame for global warming, religious leaders and globalisers. The religious leaders want population growth and the globalisers do not want anything to interfere with the industrialisation of the globe. The globalisers are largely the giant multinational corporations, the journalists who work for their media and the usual left wing anarchists who see radical change as revolutionary opportunity.
The effect of globalisation has also been to make it appear as if developed countries are more successful at controlling emissions than is in fact the case. The UK appears to have been a paragon of action on limiting CO2 with domestic emissions falling rapidly but when offshore manufacturing is taken into account (light blue line in the graph below) our CO2 emissions were climbing rapidly until the global financial crisis in 2008.
Tackling global warming was relatively easy in the 20th century, all that was needed was to control population growth and phase out fossil fuels. Unfortunately the powerful multinational corporations, left wing globalisers and religious leaders working through the US government and EU government stopped any worthwhile action. (It is worth reflecting on the fact that the European Movement set up the Bilderberg Group, an alliance of multinational corporates who now finance European Movement campaigns and were at the forefront of lobbying against ecological action).
What do we do now? The first step should be to stop the growth of the populations of developed countries. Developed countries consume the goods produced by the big polluters like China. Multinational business is aghast at this idea because every 1% fall in population is a 1% fall in their turnover and profits. However, it is the most developed countries that have very high CO2 output per head (when imports are included) and so will have the greatest impact on global CO2. Given that most of the population growth of developed countries is due to migration (see for instance UK Population Growth) and it is straightforward to prevent people moving from low emission countries to developed countries we can massively reduce CO2 emission growth.
The effects of stopping population growth in developed countries are much larger than they appear at first sight:
 |
| See Population Matters |
Having one less child is 25 times more effective than foregoing the use of a car because each child, on average, gives rise to an entire line of extra people.
Limiting population growth globally is also a very good idea, it will cut CO2 emissions, will allow individual prosperity to become more secure and most importantly it will stop the destruction of habitats for wild animals and plants. Limiting global population growth however is bad news for the bottom line of multinational corporations.
Once population growth is stabilised, or populations are falling, all the measures to produce energy from alternative sources other than fossil fuels will have a much greater effect.
Will we reverse CO2 emissions and reduce other resource depletion and habitat destruction? The Corporate Media will call us Luddites and racists if we try, they will try to link the sensible planning of family size to eugenics movements, the holocaust and goodness knows what else. They will say that asking women to choose fewer children is interfering with their right to choose, that ensuring the land is not totally overbuilt is racist and xenophobic. Reversing CO2 emissions is not in the short term interests of the Multinational Corporations who are increasingly setting the agenda, especially with the "plugged in" under 30s. The Corporate Media drill us with the message that if you want to decrease CO2 you must do it yourself rather than tackling its root cause: the profligacy of multinational corporations and population growth.
You can see the effects of Corporate pressure from a survey of school textbooks on climate change. The obvious most effective action - having one less child - is not mentioned at all:
 |
| The Climate Mitigation Gap |
It is so easy to manipulate school children. Adults should be angry.
We have all known for years that Corporate power has been growing unchecked yet their media has suppressed this. Even after the bankers got away with stealing scores of billions of pounds the corporate media still describes any criticism of corporate power as a conspiracy theory. Even when it is obvious that population growth, multinational trade and extreme internationalism is responsible for climate change the young have been turned away from the true culprits to attack the domestic behaviour of their own fellow citizens.
The power of the Media industry is bewildering at times. Multinational Corporations and International banks have damaged the planet, perhaps beyond the point of no return and have stolen scores of billions from ordinary citizens yet their media can still persuade young people that they are paragons of globalizing virtue.
22/04/19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why we should be angry with the Green Party: The Green Party lost the battle.
More on Corporate power: The Great War: Corporatism vs Freedom.
More on resource depletion: We are running out of water in the UK
What the Bank of England and Treasury believe: Doubling GDP means doubling the population.
Comments