Proposed European Climate Change Plan Flails Amid Farmer Protests
The goal of the proposed “Nature Restoration Plan” is….Climate Neutrality by 2050.
The last time I checked on the European farmers’ protests, it had appeared the continent-wide demonstrations made an impact, as the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium, nixed some of its unrealistic green plans for a global utopia. Gone, for example, are rules to force the reduction of nitrogen (essential for fertilizers) and methane (generated by cattle) and plans to persuade European citizens to eat less meat.
The demonstrations have continued, and now a major European Union climate change plan for the 27-nation bloc has been postponed…indefinitely.
The deadlock on the bill, which could undermine the EU’s global stature on the issue, came less than three months before the European Parliament election in June.
The member states were supposed to give final approval to the biodiversity bill on Monday following months of proceedings through the EU’s institutional maze. But what was supposed to be a mere rubber stamp has now turned into its possible perpetual shelving.
“How could we give that up? How could we say ‘We decided not to restore nature,’” a disappointed Irish Environment Minister Eamon Ryan said. “Not deliver on the protection of biodiversity is a shocking statement to the rest of the world,” he added, urging diplomatic pressure so that the bill could belatedly still be approved.
The goal of the proposed plan is Climate Neutrality by 2050.
The Nature Restoration plan is a part of the EU’s European Green Deal that seeks to establish the world’s most ambitious climate and biodiversity targets, and make the bloc the global point of reference on all climate issues.
The bill is part of an overall project that aims for Europe to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, demanding short and medium-term changes and sacrifices from all parts of society to reap the benefits in a generation.
“If you want to reach climate neutrality, you also have to look in the broader perspective of protecting biodiversity, strengthening the nature in Europe,” Jetten said, stressing that such initiatives were necessary.
What would “climate neutrality” even look like? Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history has examples of significant changes to the global climate, the vast majority occurring before the first hominid walked on the planet.
Barring the detonation of a large number of nuclear bombs, humans cannot directly change climate on a global scale. At present, with something like NASA’s Planetary Defense Program, we might be able to deflect an asteroid that could create an extinction-level event. I believe that would be good for “Mother Earth.”
The original environmental agency’s mission of reducing needless pollution is a reasonably achievable goal.
“Climate neutrality” is a faith-based quest that misuses science, creates cult-like behaviors, and generates destructive policies.
Interestingly, the farmers’ protests have spread to Britain.
A convoy of tractors protested outside Britain’s parliament on Monday against post-Brexit trade deals and what they called substandard food imports in the latest demonstrations by farmers globally.
At least 50 tractors, many with Union Jack flags and signs such as “no farmers, no food, no future”, took part in the protest outside the Houses of Parliament.
The farmers are demanding that the government enforce more accurate food labelling and take steps to improve the country’s food security.
I suspect the protests are going to go on for quite some time. The climate cultists seem disinclined to listen to facts, reason, or the citizens they supposedly represent.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
These farmers just don’t understand. If we get rid of 90% of the people, we can get rid of 90% of the farming. We will need 10% of the farmers (as indentured servants, of course) so that the Revolutionary Vanguard Elite can live the good communist life.
The EU has been going at this “return to nature” shit for decades!
Flooding had been getting worse every decade but that’s because, by design, the EU arbitrarily banned dredging of rivers and waterways via the back door.
What they did was to declare anything dredged as being toxic waste, which then required their approval to dispose of it!
But in the past what was dredged would have been used for building up the stop banks along water ways!
And because water ways couldn’t be dredged it meant less water could safely be removed when it rained and resulted in more and more flooding!
Which resulted in increased insurance costs.
And we wonder how we got our current cost of living crisis!! 🤬🤬
All these things are connected.
Almost every climate model prediction has been wrong. That would suggest that the hypothesis that CO² is the driver for climate change is wrong. Yet, the malicious, malevolent misanthropes behind nut-zero keep pushing the nonsense of ending the use of fossil fuels, including limiting farming. These evil malicious, malevolent misanthropes would end up having us starve and impoverished, and for what? For no purpose, that’s what. This is just like Communism which claimed it could scientifically run an economy to everyone’s benefit, when the fact of the matter is that almost no one benefitted, but the true believer never saw it that way.
“Almost every climate model prediction has been wrong” Nope, the climate models have been proven to be broadly accurate with the exception of last year where the models underestimated global average temperatures.
Skepticism about anthropogenic global warming is a reasoned position.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/20/climate-the-movie-watch-here/
Climate models are absolutely never accurate; however, this faith-based belief system requires its adherents to ignore and/or downplay data which is inconsistent with their beliefs and admit only the data that “supports” their views..
This particular cultic movement would be a relatively harmless belief, system, however, if its intentions were not such an egregious attack on human civilization and its driver not a full-on move to totalitarian rule by the parasite class, who see “climate” as a bottomless source of money and power.
The models predict a hot spot over the tropics; there is none.
There have been long pauses between apparently step wise increases in CO²; but CO² has increased monotonocally.
The models under predict temperature increases for the northern hemisphere and over predict for the southern hemisphere.
The model have predicted a 0.26⁰C increase in global temperatures per decade; the actual increase has been about 0.14⁰C.
There are other errors, but these are the ones remember at the moment.
No, if you look at them they have been broadly wrong and they vastly overestimate the effect. There’s not a single model that doesn’t.
“”broadly accurate” “except””
So, Whoopi-accurate, not accurate, accurate, including last year when wrong as named. Just doing reading comprehension, here.
The Climate Spasming conflates a bunch of things. “…We got some temps right here, they’re name is Paul Revere… ” — now, here come the inferences.
— Climate changes a lot.
— Climate changes a lot because of the humans.
— Climate changes a lot because of *exactly these things the humans do.*
— Something, must be done.
— The only thing to be done is this right here.
— “I Think That This Situation Absolutely Requires A Really Futile And Stupid Gesture Be Done On Somebody’s Part. … and we’re just the guys to demand that you do it.”
Real issues deserve way better treatment than, say, people gluing themselves to runways. The climate spasmers don’t think it’s all that serious, or they’d do better than arguing models are accurate by proclaiming their inaccuracy. Res ipsa loquitur.
Nope
Climate (and other) models deliver results which accord with their initial assumptions, which are determined by grant money, politics, and ideology.
BTW, please explain how one accurately takes the temperature of the planet. Is it oral or rectal?
“ . . . results which accord with their initial assumptions, which are determined by grant money, politics, and ideology.”
Exactly. As the saying goes, “If you don’t have the slant, you don’t get the grant.”
Prior to the catastrophilia of Mann Made Global Warming ™ temperature increased followed Co2 increase…by several hundred years.
But that didn’t work for Climate Change alarmism so they had to do away with that because you can’t have your bogey man gas not doing what the models demanded!
“Mann Made Global Warming ™ “
That’s hysterical. I’m gonna use that.
Yeah, that was a great hockey stick reference.
Mailman, you wrote: “. . . temperature increased followed Co2 increase…by several hundred years.” I think it is the other way around. In the ice core data, temperatures change direction FIRST with CO2 following along several hundred years later – a fact which refutes the notion that CO2 caused the change.
This climate hoax has addled the minds of bureaucrats. They have become cultists.
The EU labeled the farmers as far right.
If the left wants to stop far right farmers from selling their locally grown, farm fresh, fascist tomatoes, apples and peaches, then simply stop eating.
I still say the correct answer is that if they don’t like farming then refuse to sell them food and the problem will solve itself
Let me see if I understand this. Farming bad. The alternative would have to be hunting and gathering?
What game is most available? I think the polite name is “long pig”. This is a bad path to start down.
Not just that. Pretty sure I recall being taught that ‘gender roles’ in a small band hunting and gathering to stay a step ahead of starvation were very well defined and not at all fluid. Then there’s the return of the Patriarchal aspects that would occur as each band tried to out compete the others, sometimes by killing their neighbors other than the females of child bearing age who were ‘adopted’ by the tribe.
Bottom line is agriculture is a necessary component of civilization. Disrupt or degrade the ability of farms to produce food and starvation follows for those who don’t have the means or the knowledge to produce their own.
This is the camp that believes the human population should be 15% of its current size and hopes to achieve it by a return to extreme Malthusian pressure (e.g.: reversing the Green Revolution).
The Soylent is GREEN though….
The Soylent is GREEN though….