Clexit and the "Parasitical" Climate Change Industry

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically, and burning too much oil.”    -  Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

Photo taken in the Nashville Airport
Ileana Johnson October 2015

Viv Forbes, in a media release on August 1, 2016, announced the founding of Clexit, Climate Exit, by“over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.”

Forbes announced in his press release that ratification of the Paris accord will suppress the developed world with “pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies” that have no rational basis and are based on consensus. Such green and destructive polices are destroying real industries while “enriching the huge and parasitical climate-change industry that thrives on bureaucracy, misdirected government research, law books of costly regulations, never-ending conferences and subsidies for promoters of the failing technologies of renewable energy.”

He continues that if the EU ratified the Paris accord, it will spell the end of low-cost hydrocarbon electricity and transportation and the “end of manufacturing, processing and refining industries.” Developing countries will be denied low-cost energy and be forced to continue their dependency on “international handouts.”

“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the ‘Green Climate Fund’. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.” http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit.pdf

Bloomberg reported that “Environmentalists who once championed biofuels as a way to cut pollution are now turning against a U.S. program that puts renewable fuels in cars, citing higher-than-expected carbon dioxide emission and reduced wildlife habitat.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-27/as-corn-devours-u-s-prairies-greens-reconsider-biofuel-mandate

Car manufacturers announced that they are not standing behind warranties if car owners use the EPA approved E15 (15% ethanol) fuel in their cars. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/warranties-void-on-cars-burning-e15-say-automakers/index.htm

Klaus Kaiser, a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry and an extensive resume in research, wrote recently that the 2004 report, “Growing Energy,” claiming that “biofuels can clean up the environment,” is not true.” “Instead,” Kaiser wrote, “the few studies by independent investigators all showed the opposite to be true. Between sowing and reaping the harvest, converting, distilling, and distributing the product(s), no energy was ‘saved,’ the environment was not ‘cleaned up’ but rather destroyed, and the economy did not improve either.” Kaiser calls the biofuel claims a “boondoggle and a Biofuel Curse.” http://fairfaxfreecitizen.com/2016/08/03/sanity-may-prevail-after-all/

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, this administration has made global warming/climate change a priority, seen as a biggest threat facing the nation. The administration wants to “fill U.S. roadways with electric vehicles.” It also ruled that “greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger human health and welfare.” Another goal is to “phase out super-polluting HFCs (hydro-fluorocarbons), chemicals in refrigerants and other industrial substances that warm the climate.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/02/from-now-on-every-government-agency-will-have-to-consider-climate-change/?utm_term=.33f6731f2a62

On August 2, 2016, the White House Council on Environmental Quality released “final guidance on considering climate change in environmental reviews.” The ‘guidance’ is telling federal agencies that they must quantify the impacts of their actions on climate change when they produce greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions must be spelled out in the NEPA reviews. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/02/fact-sheet-white-house-council-environmental-quality-releases-final

NEPA is the 1969 law, the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to take into account and disclose environmental consequences of their activities such as permits to drill on public lands, mining, building roads, bridges, etc. Agencies are asked to look at alternatives in order “to mitigate the impacts of climate change.” The administration stated that in 2015 the federal government penned 563 such NEPA reports. https://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/RelatedLegislativeAuthorities/nepa1969.PDF

NEPA was originally intended to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” and not to restrict human activities through such severe, often draconian rules and regulations.

In the U.S. Eastern District Court of California, a judge found that John Duarte, a farmer, “plowed wetlands, four to six inches deep, and therefore violated the Clean Water Act. According to the Jefferson Policy Journal, the Court wrote, “In sum, soil is a pollutant. And here, plaintiffs instructed [a contractor] to till and loosen soil on the property. Plowing caused … the material in this case soil, to move horizontally, creating furrows and ridges. This movement of the soil resulted in its being redeposited into waters of the United States at least in areas of the wetlands as delineated.” http://www.jeffersonpolicyjournal.com/court-rules-soil-is-a-pollutant/

According to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama’s major goal is to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). He pledged at a conference in Copenhagen in 2009 that U.S. will reduce emissions of GHGs 17 percent by 2020 below 2005 levels and 80 percent by 2050. In November 2014 he set a new goal, 26-28 percent by 2025, while China announced its emissions to peak by 2030.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, “EPA’s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions,” (R44341, June 15, 2016), “President Obama made the pledge in the context of U.S. commitments under a [1992] international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

The 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro produced three documents:

-          The Framework  Convention on Climate Change

-          The Convention on Biological Diversity

-          Agenda 21 (which has now morphed into Agenda 2030)

 

President George H. W. Bush signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and Agenda 21 but refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity. According to the late Henry Lamb, “The Convention on Biological Diversity was not ratified, but because the Clinton administration believed so strongly in its provisions, the treaty recommendations were implemented administratively.”

Agenda 21 is not a treaty but a “soft law” document which “means that its recommendations are not legally binding, but nations that endorsed the document are morally obligated to implement them,” according to the United Nations. Agenda 21 and its sister on steroids, Agenda 2030, have never been debated or adopted in Congress but its provisions, including its lynchpin, Sustainable Development, have been included in legislation and administratively through “visioning grants” at the state and local levels thanks to non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) constant brainwashing around the globe.

The Obama administration also released a “Climate Action Plan and directed the EPA to propose standards for ‘carbon pollution’ [carbon dioxide, the gas of plant life] from power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later.” The rule, however, is under ongoing litigation initiated by several states and other entities who have challenged the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the rule for the duration of the litigation.  The EPA claims that it has the authority for such a rule in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44341.pdf

Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, confessed at the COP-21 climate conference in Paris that emissions cuts by U.S. and other developed nations will make no difference in the global climate.

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions—remember what I just said, all the industrial emission went down to zero emissions—it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”http://www.globalclimatescam.com/cop21/why-bother-john-kerry-admits-american-co2-cuts-would-be-pointless/

 

 

 

Import Your Food, Why Grow It?

Baragan Fields
Photo: Wikipedia

Øystein Hovdkinn, Norwegian Ambassador to Romania, allegedly praised Romania’s potential in energy and agriculture during a 2013 press conference, while mentioning the following inexplicable quandary. „You can feed 80 million people, but you import two-thirds of your food. It is the biggest paradox, it’s insanity.”

How is it possible that Romanians, citizens of an agrarian society for centuries, have become doctors, lawyers, and engineers, but have neglected to farm, an important occupation for the survival of a nation? During Ceausescu’s regime the country managed to feed through its heavy export part of the west and parts of Africa but today, the vast fertile fields remain unused, full of weeds and abandoned to soil erosion by wind and rain.

Where does the food come from? Aside from small farms, industrial scale agriculture no longer produces Romania’s food. Wheat, corn, and sunflower seeds make up half of exports but most finished goods including food come from imports.

Adrian Porumboiu, who owns Racova Com Agro Pan of Vaslui, is quoted as saying that Romania imports cherries from South Africa and beans from Ethiopia. http://www.activenews.ro/economie-agricultura/Ambasadorul-Norvegiei-catre-romani-Puteti-hrani-80-de-milioane-de-oameni-dar-importati--doua-treimi-din-alimente.-E-o-nebunie-123525

According to ampress.ro, items like pork and sugar constitute  a large percentage of imports. http://www.expunere.com/ambasadorul-norvegiei-catre-romani-puteti-hrani-80-de-milioane-de-oameni-dar-importati-doua-treimi-din-alimente-e-o-nebunie.html

Lucian Avramescu asked in his scathing article „why Romania imports garlic from China, leeks from Egypt, apples from Poland, and lettuce from Brazil.” I saw with my own eyes in May this year pears from Chile. I thought to myself at the time, these pears have come a long way to Ploiesti. Where are the Romanian pears? Fruit orchards were abundant when I was growing up. And locals grew fruit trees in their own back yards.

Wine grapes Photo: Ileana 2012

„Why purchase grapes abroad when you have vineyards that produce the most diverse varieties of table and wine grapes, enough to fill the most regal tables of the world?” said Avramescu. „Why buy grapes from Italy when you have vineyards in Dragasani, Pietroasele, Valea Calugareasca, or Odobesti, grapes that are just as good if not better than those purchased from Italy where they are sprayed abundantly with pesticides,” he added. I now understand why in our Italian apartment in Veneto, overlooking a vineyard, we never saw any mosquitoes or flies even though, in the absence of air conditioning, we left the windows wide open day and night.

Why would anyone import food for a population five times smaller than the actual amount of food they could grow themselves if they tried again? Instead, as Avramescu said, Romanians export wood and import wheat into a „Grain Country.” The fields of grain used to be so tall that a rider on this horse could hide nicely in the wheat blowing in the wind.

What happened? Why import garlic from China which has been fertilized „with human feces,” said Avramescu. Why import shrimp from the sewers of China when we have the Black Sea and the Danube Delta? There is a simple answer – globalism and EU control. Billions in grants and easy finance come from the EU with strings attached.

Romania is not alone when it engages in insane trade policies and agricultural practices. More and more local agricultural businesses and large farms around the world have been bought by China. Pigs and chickens are shipped to China from the U.S. to be processed and then shipped back to grocery stores in the U.S. without provenance labeling.

The Norwegian was kind, said Avramescu, he only called the importation practice „paradoxal.” What he meant to say, „it is idiotic.”

Romanian field of corn
Photo: Ileana Johnson 2011

Romanians may no longer grow enough food to feed 20 million people on some of the abandoned Baragan fields that used to be the breadbasket of the Balkans. Mini tornadoes of dust swirl in the air between the slow-turning wind turbines that dot the barren landscape in Baragan. The good news it that they’ve been incentivized to use renewable energy they can barely afford in their homes and to reduce pollution through a 306 million euro grant from Norway. Who needs to grow food to survive when becoming green saves the planet?

What if the exporter decides to reduce crop yield due to drought, unforseen natural circumstances, or increase its own domestic reserves of grain? What will the importer do?