UN Chief Goes on Delusional Tirade Against Fossil Fuels, Saying They Are “Incompatible with Human Survival”
Meanwhile, globalists of the World Economic Forum want the number of cars around the world to be reduced by 75% by 2050.
As the push-back against eco-tyranny intensifies, the private-jet-setting global elites are doubling down on their liberty-crushing, prosperity-killing, humanity-demeaning policies.
To begin with, the head of the United Nations just went on a delusional tirade against fossil fuels.
The head of the United Nations launched a tirade against fossil fuel companies Thursday, accusing them of betraying future generations and undermining efforts to phase out a product he called “incompatible with human survival.”
Secretary-General António Guterres also dismissed suggestions by some oil executives — including the man tapped to chair this year’s international climate talks in Dubai — that fossil fuel firms can keep up production if they find a way to capture planet-warming carbon emissions. He warned that this would just make them “more efficient planet-wreckers.”
It appears that Guterres’ rage stems from the fact that the nations of the world are not necessarily united in the struggle against fossil fuels. Furthermore, politicians are beginning to have some success countering climate cult inanity.
His remarks come after the United Arab Emirates, which will host U.N. climate change negotiations (COP28) later this year, said that talks should focus on phasing out emissions, not fossil fuels. Negotiators are struggling to agree to an agenda for COP28, due to start Nov. 30, which could put talks at risk.
Some wealthy Western states and climate-afflicted island nations have been pushing for a phase out of fossil fuels, while resource-rich countries have campaigned to keep drilling.
“Fossil fuel companies must also cease and desist influence peddling and legal threats designed to knee-cap progress. I am thinking particularly of recent attempts to subvert net-zero alliances, invoking anti-trust legislation,” Guterres said.
Republican politicians in some U.S. states pushing back against sustainability efforts have charged that companies in such climate alliances and using environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards could be breaking anti-trust laws by aligning their policies.
At the same time, globalists of the World Economic Forum (WEF) want the number of cars around the world to be reduced by 75% by 2050.
The goal is buried in a briefing paper released last month called “The Urban Mobility Scorecard Tool: Benchmarking the Transition to Sustainable Urban Mobility.” It points out that more than two-thirds of the world’s population will be urban by 2050. If we are to meet their needs and achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, the report recommends “electrification, public transport and shared mobility.”
This will mean a lot fewer cars: “Reduce vehicles from a potential 2.1 billion to 0.5 billion.” That is a radical drop with fewer than 30 years to do it. But this, it says, “could slash emissions from passenger vehicles by 80% compared to a business-as-usual scenario—reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 3.9 billion tons a year.”
The briefing paper is a masterful example of delusion as well. The phrase these global-scale bureaucrats are parsing out now is “shared mobility.”
By 2050, almost 70% of the world’s population will live in urban areas, swelling the size of towns and cities by 2.5 billion people. Over the same period, demand for urban travel is predicted to double. On the current trajectory, that would add 4.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every
year by mid-century. Such a scenario is at odds with both the Paris Agreement on climate change and a vision of cities as healthy, sustainable and successful places to live.There is another way. Electrifying vehicles is vital, but not enough. Only by syncing electrification with a shift to shared mobility can cities achieve necessary reductions in emissions, while tackling wider issues of congestion, health and more. That means expanding public and shared transport systems, embracing innovations in connected and autonomous technology, and delivering more compact cities fit for walking and cycling.
Carbon dioxide is a life-essential gas. Its loss would be incompatible with life. Consider that your breath emits about 40,000 ppm of this gas, and the current levels in the atmosphere are 415 ppm.
Just more alarmism here folks. What's toxic is climate alarmism. Graphs and claims are fun to look at, but reality is a better teacher … https://t.co/mIQVtErwVA pic.twitter.com/XpKPgUBQDV
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) June 17, 2023
The response by the “experts” to the covid pandemic has taught people to be extremely wary of simple solutions to problems based on “the Science™”. We now have decades of evidence that the assertions about global warming have proven untrue, so why should we deny ourselves the life-essential and comfort-enhancing products made from fossil fuels?
The best way to understand climate change is to study how the sun influences our earth. For example, this graph shows just two solar-driven cycles that are currently affecting our climate … https://t.co/TZfVSDP9YB pic.twitter.com/r6lv6c1YBK
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) June 18, 2023
I predict there will be even more push-back against global eco-tyranny as the due date for the ridiculous agenda items draws near.
I also foresee even more hyperbolic claims of doom from the globalist power-seekers and more dubious, narrative-based reporting from their media minions.
Hopefully, real science and humanity will prevail.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Why is America still in the UN? Withdraw, kick them out. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money.
Don’t forget the WEF. These organizations are actively trying to destroy American society. They need to be treated the same way we treat enemy states or hostile terrorist organizations. The end result they’re pushing for is the same…destruction of our way of life.
Various Republicans gave said they would take us out. And here they still are.
A president Grizzly woyld eirk very hard to get us out of the UN.
Who would be Grizzly’s VP?
I’m not sure. Either Professor Jacobson, or Miss Fuzzy J Slippers.
The truth of the matter is is the use of fossil fuels has skyrocketed improvements in The Human Condition in the way that no other development throughout the history of mankind is managed to. It always amazes me that their answer to cheap reliable energy is expensive, unreliable energy. What they want would be taking us back to the
Supporting the UN is like sending money to the hitman who was hired to kill you.
“The UN is where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard.”
Attribution unknown.
“The 3,000 delegates attending the UN Food Summit, dedicated to fighting global hunger, launched their conference with a lunch of foie gras, lobster, and goose stuffed with olives, followed by fruit compote.”
–REASON MAGAZINE
And prime real estate. Assuming anyone wants to invest in NYC in this day and time.
Stay in and use our veto for pretty much everything.
Stop paying for them.
Let me know when he proposes to start bombing China and India as they are building multiple dirty coal plants every month.
Until then he’s just begging for AMERICAN dollars.
Modern society is completely ungrateful for what past generations has gifted to it.
The guy just wants more money as always. Instead of reducing the number of cars by 75%, reduce the number of ‘globalists’ by that much and sooner.
I agree that the US should resign and defund. Short of that, how about U.N. by Zoom? No one flies anywhere. They can’t come to the US for “work.” Most of the delegates have to live in their shithole countries.
These people are not delusional. They are watermelons and they are evil.
The UN and WEF are incompatible with human survival.
Absent all CO2, fossil fuels and products made from hydrocarbons, we would all be dead in short order.
The quoted article refers to “climate-afflicted island nations.”
Which nations?
Were the Maldives under water back in 1100?
Make these fools live 90 days without any benefit of fossil fuels and we will then see what is incompatable with human survival. THEIR IDEAS!
Not just fuel though, take every price of plastic and everything else produced or moved by petrol chemicals. Then let them live ‘naked and afraid’.
Sharing a car does not necessarily reduce miles driven. One car may be driven twice as far.
Now putting folks in cages or 6 feet under – that certainly reduces the miles they drive.
And “shared mobility” is a euphemism for “target-rich environment.”
Most generally, civilization advances and declines with the availability and affordability of energy. That is the simplest equation of humanity.
The Western Left are self-hating nihilists who are actually looking to destroy Man. They are the worst errors that the “Trial and Error” of evolution has ever puked out.
Energy = Life.
Abundant affordable energy = human progress and happiness
Well MORON, what energy do you propose to keep living standards where they are? Your green detritus isn’t paying off but for 100 years it’s paid your crowd.
This is Exhibit 1000 in support of why the U.S. should cease funding, and exit, the UN.
Naturally, all of those reductions in energy, vehicles, et al would only apply to the peasant class. The elites, after all, are better than we are, and would still need all of those things to better rule us.
You got that right. They’ll still have their limos, private jets and multiple houses by the beach. They won’t be eating bugs. They’ll have air conditioning, etc.
In short. this type of crap is EXACTLY why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Come and take it motherfu*ckers (right in the face.)
I wonder how he got to the meeting.
Facts beg to differ.
The very opposite of the truth. As expected.
For how many centuries have humans been using coal?
The man is, at best, an hysterical eejit, and, at worst, an evil dictator wanna-be.
If he believes this drivel he could start with himself, one less carbon-based degenerate cretin who believes he’s better than anyone else taking up oxygen.
No mention of plastics that are derived from fossil fuels, the same plastics that enable the movement of clean water, the movement of waste water. Improving food safety, the use of plastics has saved millions if not billions of lives.
Good luck living in modern society with products derived from fossil fuels including fertilizer based on fossil fuels.
#1 oil and gas are not “fossil fuels”
#2 stop calling them that, quit repeating the lie for the enviro wackos
The UN normalizes sex with children
And wants the world to take it seriously
No thank you
Even assuming he were right, there is are few fundamental problems in trying to implement any kind of proposal to reduce fossil fuel use:
India, Africa, China, and most of South America.
There simply is no infrastructure to allow the poor to leapfrog past fossil fuels to a wonderful nuclear (oops sorry!) solar and wind powered future.
The choice is either to condemn the poor there to continue burn cow dung and walk, or allow them the benefits of fossil fuels. I don’t think the masses will take kindly to being asked to save the planet while the West zips around in electric limos. They will get fossil fuels, coal, gas, and gasoline and the U.N. be damned. However, the standard of living in North America, Europe, and Japan will be bureaucratically nibbled away
I remember when photographs of China’s cities, where the residents were forced to walk or bicycle everywhere, were displayed for laughs, not as examples to be emulated.
“incompatible with human survival.”
You know what is incompatible with human survival?
Fatcat totalitarians.
How did he get there?? Walk??
This is pure Maqrxist hogwash
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to control it – Mencken
In the case of the climate doomsday cult, you can delete the “almost” from Mencken’s quote
“Secretary-General António Guterres also dismissed suggestions by some oil executives — including the man tapped to chair this year’s international climate talks in Dubai — that fossil fuel firms can keep up production if they find a way to capture planet-warming carbon emissions.”
Too many politicians and CEOs are accepting the nonsense of the climate change cult instead of calling out the naked emperor that it is. The entire edifice is built on lies. Trying to appease the climatistas, who ultimately want to destroy Western civilization, by trying to tinker around the edges of solutions to a non-existent problem is a fools errand that only emboldens the cultists to make ever increasing society-killing demands.
There is no “Climate Crisis” —
In order for the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to prove viable there must be the predicted and required subtropical “Hot Spot” observable in the upper atmosphere. Decades of testing with both balloons and satellites producing voluminous data points has proven there is no sign of a subtropical hot spot, thus there is no viable AGW theory.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
Testing for the “Hot Spot” is just such an experiment.
Likewise, the AGW theory requires that increases of “heat trapping ‘greenhouse’ gases” will necessarily cause rises of ambient temperatures, which in turn will produce an increase in atmospheric water vapor, itself the most prolific and therefore major “greenhouse gas,” thus multiplying the warming effects of the warming increases of the gases. Observations have shown no data correlating a rise in atmospheric water vapor with an increase in other “greenhouse gases,” as predicted and required by the theory. Theory once again fails critical verification test. Another theory on the scrape heap of history cobbled together like the bones of the Piltdown Man hoax, formerly the biggest scientific hoax of the past century.