The Climate Gag
No climate activist really thinks about the climate narrative.
Robert Cibis
Again and again, the attentive observer is faced with the question, “What might people be thinking?” and must finally realize that this question is probably wrongly posed. The right question would be: “Do they even think, or do they just believe?” Because the more irrational a narrative, the stronger the belief…
Damage to plants, animals, and humans from the microwaves of 5G transmission towers and mobile phones, the burden of deforestation, species extinction, and infrasound pollution from wind turbines, and last but not least, armament and arms deliveries could today be the major hot topics of the Green Party. This is how not only its founders but also many of its voters would have seen it.
In autumn 2021, after the rapid deployment of large troop contingents and the joint defense of NATO’s eastern flank were “practiced” together with Ukraine in the largest ever NATO maneuver, Defender-Europe 21, the Greens implemented the following election campaign:
“No weapons and armaments to war zones!” “Ready because you are” – election campaign of the Green Party
The slogan “Ready because you are” already had an olive-green tinge, but some still hoped for serious peace policy… Even if unjustified: We have known since Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer advocated for NATO’s war of aggression against Serbia in 1999, even though his party’s 1990 Bundestag election program demanded: “We must leave NATO because there can be no peace with NATO…” At the time, voters either felt betrayed or had to think, “If even the Greens are calling for this war, then it must be necessary…”
When the Greens were in government in 2022, the attentive conservationist stood there like the attentive peace activist in 1999—like a drenched poodle. The subliminal replacement of “environmental protection” with “climate protection” is a perfidious deception. The fact that the torch of the climate emergency was even passed from the Greens to the CDU, which recently ensured that climate protection was enshrined in the constitution, is another remarkable pirouette. “If even the CDU is doing this, we must really have a big emergency…,” one might think.
Yes, it’s about nothing less than saving the world, as the citizen knows: Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said in November 2022 that humanity was heading for an “abyss” with “devastating consequences for our lives on the only planet we have” if warming exceeded 2.5 degrees (cf. here). She adopts the rhetoric of the heroic figure Greta Thunberg, who has repeatedly said that climate change will “wipe out” humanity.
Tweet from June 21, 2018 – now deleted
The climate clock is ticking, and the team behind it explains the impending extinction of humanity: “The 1.5-degree threshold is the point at which, according to science, there is no turning back and the worst effects of climate change become inevitable. The clock will keep running until it reaches zero. At that point, our carbon budget would be used up and the likelihood of devastating global climate impacts would be very high. We must act to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to zero as quickly as possible within this critical window for action.” UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell is also pushing for faster action and said in April 2024 that people have two years left to “save the world.”
With the apocalypse looming, Robert Habeck had to take responsibility for the backbone of German society, its economy, in his ministry. He therefore had to rename his department to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection. Instead of prosperity, growth, and well-being, we now have to “tighten our belts,” as Prime Minister Mario Voigt (CDU) put it.
So, nature conservation and pacifism are off the table, not just for the Greens. Now it’s about “climate protection,” i.e.—as we all know—emitting as little CO₂ as possible… Really? Is that what it means?
The actual actions of the Greens, SPD, FDP, and CDU cast doubt on their honesty:
- No negotiations, no ceasefire to end the war in Ukraine. In the first three years of the war, it caused about 230 million tons of CO₂ equivalents. According to current analyses, this corresponds to the annual emissions of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia combined. Russia demands territorial concessions, lifting of all sanctions, a stop to Western arms deliveries, limitation of the Ukrainian army, and Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership—and in return, can prevent the world from burning? Who could refuse such an offer? (and incidentally end the killing)
- No nuclear power, although it is the only CO₂-free form of energy production. To judge the honesty of the Greens and others, one could grant them a fear of the unlikely explosion of a German nuclear power plant. But honestly! What is that compared to the certain end of the world with the same or increased CO₂ emissions?
- The Greens demand “all necessary measures to expressly exclude the commissioning of the Nord Stream pipelines” and permanently stop importing gas from Russia. Yet, the CO₂ emissions from US liquefied natural gas (LNG) are significantly higher than those from Russian natural gas previously delivered via Nord Stream pipelines. The difference is mainly due to the energy-intensive liquefaction, transport across the Atlantic, and the fact that US gas is mostly obtained by fracking. US LNG causes about twice as much CO₂ emissions per kilowatt-hour as Russian pipeline gas.
- Renate Künast [Alliance 90/The Greens] even mocked the urgency of a motion to clarify the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines at the end of September 2022 in a Bundestag debate. She addressed Die Linke: “Aren’t you really embarrassed?” (“…like the AfD, demanding clarification?”).
Why such a strong avoidance of clarifying the attack? That would be inexplicable for someone who believes in the climate narrative: Up to 485,000 tons of methane were released into the atmosphere. This is the largest amount of the highly problematic “greenhouse gas methane” ever released by a single event. Over a period of 20 years, it is about 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO₂. According to the Federal Environment Agency, the amount of methane released during the Nord Stream attack corresponds to about 7.5 million tons of CO₂ equivalents—about one percent of Germany’s total annual emissions. (After the attack, the average temperature in this region of the Baltic Sea did not increase. It was even somewhat cooler. Thus, the greenhouse thesis is empirically disproved, isn’t it?)
- The production of an electric car causes about 1.5 to 2 times more CO₂ than that of a gasoline car. If the battery lasts long enough, the CO₂ balance can shift in favor of the e-car. (But that is, of course, much less the case if the electricity comes from LNG and without nuclear energy.) The really crucial question would be: How long does the battery last? Not least, the massive subsidies for e-car purchases harm the CO₂ statistics… Financial support for buying a new car disadvantages cars that have been driven for a long time. This increases the CO₂ emissions from the production of these vehicles…
If the hardest CO₂ activists avoid discussing the CO₂ balance on the topics mentioned here, then we must ask them what is really important to them. What is the societal and personal sacrifice for “the climate” really about?
Hans-Georg Maassen summarizes the mechanism of submission. These techniques were not only used by the KGB… A bad conscience for exhaling CO₂, a bad conscience for being white (or even worse, a white male), a bad conscience for the crimes of previous generations—these are newly packaged but actually very old narratives. They are reminiscent, for example, of the dogmas of the Catholic Church: Whether impure thoughts, sexuality, original sin, absence from Sunday Mass, or lack of willingness to donate—there was always reason for a bad conscience, which every sinner was constantly reminded of by a global network of monks, nuns, priests, bishops, and ordinary believers: “Submission brainwashing” from an early age…
But the climate narrative means even more than submission through guilt. It is also submission through poverty. The increased energy prices and the resulting deindustrialization hit the middle classes of Germany.
The probably most important aspect of this narrative is mentioned far too rarely. The climate narrative is the basis for a completely new economic and societal (world) order. It forms the bridge between digital central bank currency and energy certificates. The latter originate from a concept published by New York technocrats in 1934:
“Energy certificates are issued individually to every adult in the total population… The records of a person’s income and expenditures are kept by the distribution sequence, so that it is always easy for the distribution sequence to determine the account balance of a particular customer… When purchasing goods or services, a person hands over the properly marked and signed energy certificates.
The significance of this system for understanding the processes in the social system and for social control can best be seen when one views the entire system from this perspective. First, the entire social mechanism is managed and operated by a single organization. The same organization not only produces all goods and services but also distributes them.
Since this information is continuously transmitted to a central control center, we have a case that corresponds exactly to the control panel of a power plant or the bridge of an ocean liner…” [Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott, p. 238-239, New York, 1934]
Technocracy is a substitute system for capitalism and the free market economy. It envisages that all means of production and consumption are controlled for the benefit of humanity by an elite group of scientists and engineers (technocrats). Technocracy gained importance when it was adopted by the Trilateral Commission in 1973 as part of its “New International Economic Order” program.
And this is what it sounds like today when “energy certificates” are discussed in The Telegraph: “…the introduction of individual CO₂ certificates for every citizen would be the most effective way to achieve the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. People would be given a unique number, which they would have to provide when purchasing products that contribute to their CO₂ footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets, and electricity. Like a bank account, a statement would be sent out every month so that people can keep track of their consumption. When their ‘CO₂ account’ drops to zero, they would have to pay for more credits.” (emphasis added) Or in The Independent: “Should everyone have their own CO₂ quota? Calls for emission certificates are getting louder. Proponents suggest that every resident of the UK should receive a monthly CO₂ budget to spend on heating, mobility, energy, and food.”
That somehow reminds one of the unconditional basic income, with a good dose of digital central bank money, such as the “digital euro”: Every transaction can be observed, restricted, or prevented by the central bank. Every individual budget is controllable (cf. here): Today, Michael is not allowed to refuel anymore, since he already ate beef. Tomorrow, Charles is not allowed to take the train, since he announced an interview with Mrs. X, who criticizes the government. In small or not-so-small steps, this is the direction, according to the director of the central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements, Agustín Carstens: “The central bank will have absolute control over this form of central bank liability, and we have the technology to enforce it.”
The climate narrative paves the way for collectivism, poverty, guilt, submission, and the destruction of national structures. It is entirely in line with the UN. Because only with a world government, after all, can the world climate problem be solved. Such a global social form seems even more important here than in the case of a world virus problem.
That’s why Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Programme, said as early as 1980 that “entire nations could disappear from the face of the earth due to rising sea levels if the trend of global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” (see AP News) Do you know which nations have been flooded by now?
Original German version (with more German links)
