Washington, DC: Among the many problems of our times, that of climate change has been hyped beyond all proportions in both developed and developing countries. Consequently, it has become virtually impossible to distinguish between the just and proper care of the environment, which is a great moral and social duty, and environmentalism, which is a great moral excess.
Pope Francis’s June 2015 encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si, Mi’ Signore (Praise be to you, my Lord), which has been praised by many who praise everything the Pope says, should have helped make the distinction much clearer. But many devout Christians, Catholics faithful to the Church Magisterium, feel Laudato Si’s paean to “Mother Earth” as the source of all life is poetry, not theology or science, and a possible slipping toward paganism.
As a Catholic layman, I quote this objection boldly without endorsing it; I simply want a clarification. I see the environment as part of the natural order of things created to support the existence and glory of man; I reject the suggestion that man is merely a part and servant of the environment, and, whenever necessary, may be sacrificed for it. This cannot be an unreasonable position.
Paris 2015 World Climate Summit
But this is precisely where the world today has split into two opposite poles. The polarization will be on full display in Paris from Nov. 30 to December 11, when the United Nations convenes the World Climate Summit. This will bring in political, religious, business, industry, union and social leaders from everywhere, and will be the biggest conference ever held in France. It will conclude an unprecedented series of dozens of conferences on anthropogenic climate change (climate change caused or influenced by humans) during the year in the French capital.
Its main objective will be to conclude a legally binding international convention being pushed by the French and Peruvian governments, which will oblige every nation to agree to specific goals to reduce global warming to less than two degrees Celsius. All forms of media and instruments of public opinion are being mobilized to support this effort, and drown all skepticisms or objections.
Schiller Institute dissents
Yet here in Washington, D.C., the Schiller Institute, a political and economic think tank based here and in Germany, has published a report calling the Paris conference “satanic” and a “swindle.” It has also released a resolution calling on the citizens of the world to defeat the declared objective of the summit.
The report appears in the current issue of Executive Intelligence Review, and is authored by Helga Zepp-La Rouche, founder and chairman of the Institute. She is a German-born intellectual who is active in many humanitarian causes. I first met her a few years ago on Rhodes Island in Greece where we both spoke at the Dialogue of Civilizations. I have tried to follow her writings since. She minces no words, and she makes a lot of sense.
Not science but population reduction
Zepp-La Rouche argues that the call for the “decarbonization” of the world economy, which ultimately means the banning of nuclear energy and fossil fuels, and the sole reliance on renewable energy sources, is based not on “established science,” but rather on an ideological scheme to establish an “eco-dictatorship” that would compel people, especially those in developing countries, to do away with the achievements of scientific and material progress, thereby bringing down their living standards, their life expectancies and their cognitive capabilities.
The ultimate objective, according to the report, is the drastic reduction of the world population —-from the present 7.3 billion to just one billion.
Carbon concentration low
The report maintains that the “man-made portion of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is negligibly low—0.018 percent, and the connection between CO2 emissions and climate change is unproven, thus the entire argument is based on a swindle.”
The report continues:
“If you look at the Earth’s climate over millions of years, the changes from warming periods, ice ages, interglacial periods, little ice ages, rewarming periods after these ice ages, etc. result from cosmic radiation in connection with our Sun’s cycle of activity for which the number of sunspots forms a measure of the Sun’s energy production; changes in the characteristic of the Earth’s orbit; and the changing position of the Solar system in our galaxy, to name only some of the changing parameters.”
How to bring down population to one billion
“What is very well proven, by contrast to anthropogenic climate change, is the connection between the energy-flux density applied in the production process and the number of human beings that can be supported by that production process level. By the intended decarbonization of the world economy, combined with the simultaneous demonization of nuclear energy, thus reducing society to renewable energy sources only, the potential population which can be maintained at these lower energy flux densities is also reduced and goes roughly to the pre-industrial era—-a maximum of one billion people.”
Royal sources of mischief
The report attributes the alleged population reduction scheme to the most distinguished of British royal sources, no less than Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who is famously quoted as having said that when he dies he would like to be reborn a virus so he could reduce the population of the world to a minimal size.
Named as an active collaborator in the alleged scheme is the Queen’s climate change adviser, who is also German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s adviser, who is also Pope Francis’s adviser—Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change. In 2009, Schellnhuber was reported to have told the failed Copenhagen Climate Change summit that the carrying capacity of the Earth only allowed one billion humans.
In April 2011, one month after the earthquake-tsunami in Fukushima, Japan, Schellnhuber reportedly came up with a program for the German government (entitled Social Contract for a Great Transformation), which projected “complete decarbonization of the economy, the elimination of nuclear fission, which is advised against; nuclear fusion, which is claimed to be eventually attainable but too complicated; and the complete abandonment of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas by the year 2050.”
This obviously explains Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear energy, along with Italy and some other countries. But at the second nuclear security summit in Seoul in March 2012, attended by President Barack Obama, then Chinese President Hu Jintao, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, among others, the most significant statement I heard was that no substitute had yet been developed for it.
Resolution against the summit
Aside from the highly critical report, Schiller Institute also issued a resolution calling on international citizens to speak against the summit. Because the resolution is a direct attack on a project to which the UN and perhaps all governments have committed full support, it is not likely to receive any play in the mainstream press. For this reason, I thought it would be a service to reproduce it here just to hear the other side. Thus this text:
The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.
There is no legitimate basis for having the COP21 conference. Put an end to this now!
Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Because many climate models are using these false assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2, the predictions of these climate models have been consistently wrong, and with each year they are diverging further from reality. The gradual changes in the climate that have occurred over the recent decades, and the gradual changes which will continue to occur in the future, are not and will not be a cause for alarm.
Most of these changes are natural, and any impact mankind may have would be relatively minor. A healthy and growing world economy will be able to adapt to these changes.
We must also recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.
But the Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.
More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth’s “carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people.
The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the eighteenth century, and his followers are wrong today.
Energy-intensive scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher levels of energy flux-density, per capita and per area. Such progress, growth, and development is a universal right, and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.
The adoption of a legally binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of life, with higher death rates, greater poverty, and no ability to exercise their inherent human right to participate in the creation of a better future for society as a whole.
This is deeply immoral.
For these reasons the CO2 reduction scheme of the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.