For a long time, I have wondered what will happen when fossile energy comes to an end? Will there be a big war? Will energy be something for the rich, with the masses being unable to afford energy and all the comfort that comes with it?
Now, at the end of 2009, I am beginning to see much clearer, thanks to the massive CO2 scam that has been going on for a while: the fight for energy will be a war, but a war of a new, previously unseen kind – the war of governments on their people! If you think this is bizarre and silly, it is! But it is not too far from truth. Here are some facts for one of the most developed countries in the world – Germany.
The “Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen” (WBGU) is a consulting council to the German government (!) for questions of the global environment change. These people re-iterate the official CO2 bogus scare whenever they can. And they published a “factsheet” where they propose a total CO2 budget for each nation until 2050, i.e. for the next 40 years. The total world budget for the entire period is quoted as “750 billion tons of CO2″. (Unfortunately, this document is available in German language only, but it might be worth getting a translation.)
According to the suggestion made in the document, Germany has 1.2% of the world population and would thus receive 1.2% of the 750 billion tons CO2 emissions respectively, 9 billion tons CO2 in total over the entire period. (The U.S. has 4.6% of the population and would receive 4.6% of the 750 billion tons, i.e. 35 billion tons.)
Now, “billion tons” may sound a lot, but in fact it is not!
Lets do a very, very simple calculation for Germany (but for the U.S. it would be similar since the assignment of CO2 budgets depends on population):
9,000,000,000 tons / 80,000,000 persons / 40 years
= 2.8 tons / year / person
Let’s further break this down:
2812 kilograms per person per year
= 7.7 kilograms per person per day (roughly)
Which is a ridiculous low value, compared to today’s consumption of roughly 11 tons per year per person (in Germany). Yes, they want us to reduce CO2 consumption by roughly 75%. Hmmm. You think that is not too bad? Well, let’s have a look. Here are some examples that make clear what such a step will actually mean for our lives:
- The daily budget of 7.7 kilograms is good for 47 kilometers of car driving of a medium sized car (e.g. 164 g/km CO2 emission), or 23.5 kilometers return (one person). Unfortunately, if you decide to use the car for that distance, you may not eat anything that day, because the production of food will also cause CO2 emissions, so it’s either that drive in the car -or- having some food plus using the computer for a while plus switching on the light in the evening.
- A two-week trip from Germany to the beautiful island of Mallorca will cost 1221 kg of CO2 per person, or about 43% of the person’s annual CO2 budget. And a two-week trip from Germany to Mexico causes 7218 kg of CO2 per person. This is, unfortunately, two-and-a-half times the annual budget per person (Source: WWF Germany). Or to be very clear: just forget about such trips in the future (and better look at our pictures of Mallorca and Mexico City instead :-). You see, that’s what this whole CO2 stuff is all about: rationing energy and energy consumption to a degree that your life will be seriously affected.
- Each and every product might be assigned its respective “CO2 footprint” (whoever determines that, and how). So, whenever you do a purchase, the respective CO2 impact will be withdrawn from your annual CO2 budget. It’s easy and convenient: at the cashier, just present your CO2 I.D. card, and the footprint for all your purchases will be calulated for you automatically, quick, easy, no problems. A side effect is that the state actually gets to know what you purchase, when you purchase it, and where you purchase it. Think this is too Orwellian? Bah! The U.K. is already thinking about this.
- Children are now just “adorable carbon producing machines”, at least according to Valerie Williams, owner of green innovation site GreenMuze. In one of her articles she writes: “From a purely environmental standpoint it makes more sense for the planet to help a pre-existing child rather than create another adorable carbon producing machine. In fact, it is important that the individuals living in countries with large environmental footprints opt not to have children.” I think this idea is plain bizarre and ultimately cynical, and I sincerly hope that Mrs. Williams will never be in a position to work on (or -heaven help!- decide upon) legislation that will support such thinking.
Now, I might call this “okay-ish” (except for Mrs. Williams view) IF there were hard, undeniable scientific facts that CO2 is indeed causing that global warming, that global warming is bad for the planet, and that reducing CO2 emissions could indeed “save the planet”. But this is not the case! It is not entirely clear in the scientific world that warming per se is a bad thing. Also the other, often mentioned consequences (e.g. polar bears dying, incredible rising of sea levels, increase of the intensity and number of Hurricanes, etc. etc.) are unproved or even disproved.
In the mass media you will see mostly the official “bogus” messages, reported in an ever increasing alarmist style:
- Global warming is bad for the planet!
- There is consensus among scientists that man-made CO2 is causing global warming!
- Reducing CO2 emissions by X percent will limit global warming to Y degrees!
Again – none of this has actually been proven.
So I urge you, the readers of my blog, to wake up! This nonsense has to stop, presto. Let’s not give our governments the cover for more outright silly legislation and higher, pointless taxes. Let’s speak up against this!
Read more about the great global warming swindle – I suggest to start with these videos, documents, and articles, all of them very revealing:
(auf Deutsch) Zu Hause bei den Klima-Knechten
(auf Deutsch) pur+: Die Erde schwitzt
P.S.: Whenever I discuss the CO2 scam with people who are “not so much into the topic”, at some point during the discussion I hear – “well, even if CO2 is not responsible for global warming, isn’t saving energy a good thing?”. To which I respond: Of course it is! I am all for saving energy and reducing human impact on the environment and developing eco-friendly technologies! But I completely reject the idea of a state-controlled CO2 rationing as now suggested by several organizations. The reason is simple: if we allow this kind of rationing to happen, the impact on our economies and lives will be massive (see above). And before I accept such consequences, I want to see clear and undeniable evidence based on scientific facts, not fuzzy guesswork.
* * *
An Airbus A380 lands in Munich, Germany, on 28th March 2007. In the proposed “low-carbon lifestyle”, trips with aircrafts will probably be a thing of the past for the majority of the people in the developed world.
If CO2 restrictions become reality, the beautiful harbour of Cala Figuera on the Spanish island Mallorca might see less tourists. WWF Germany has calculated the CO2 impact of a two-week trip to be 1221 kg of CO2 per person traveling. This would be about 43% of the annual allowance.
Tourists climb to the top of the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan, Mexico City. With CO2 budgets in place. a trip from the E.U. to Mexico would be out of the question – the CO2 impact of a two-week trip to Mexico is said to be 7218 kg of CO2 per person traveling, or two-and-a-half times as much as the annual allowance.