U.N. Climate Scientists Seek Government Accountability
Several scientist members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are demanding more influence over governments to bring about their radical and potentially deadly climate policies. According to The Guardian’s Arthur Neslen, “Five lead authors of IPCC reports” are insisting that scientists should have the power to make policy prescriptions and oversee their implementation by the 195 states signed up to the U.N. framework convention on climate change.
IPCC Vice-Chair Sonia Seneviratne stated, “At some point we need to say that if you want to achieve this aim set by policymakers then certain policies need to be implemented.” The policies she is referring to are fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts.
The idea of “fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts” is terrifying. Green energy has proven to be unreliable and insufficient. Fossil fuels have actually saved lives. Climate disasters have always posed a threat to humanity, and what has protected people from these disasters is technological innovation, including the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, durable buildings, and mass irrigation. Thanks to fossil fuels, climate-related disaster deaths have been reduced by 99 percent compared to 100 years ago. Abandoning fossil fuels entirely for green energy would put millions of people at risk of climate-related deaths.
Despite the potential dangers, scientists like Gert-Jan Nabuurs, who contributed to three IPCC reports, are upset about their lack of authority to implement their disastrous agenda. Nabuurs complained that the IPCC’s critical and independent roles are diminishing, while countries exert more influence.
It is true that governments worldwide have shown interest in enacting climate change policies. However, their actions often contradict their own environmentally conscious standards, as they continue to travel in gas-guzzling private jets. Their primary concern seems to be accumulating power for themselves rather than genuinely addressing climate change.
During the U.N.’s 2014 climate conference in Paris, U.N. Climate Chief Christina Figueres openly admitted that the conference aimed to change the economic development model that has been in place since the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization not only saves lives from climate-related disasters but also lifts people out of poverty and improves their standard of living.
This proposed “change” is actually a transition towards fewer freedoms and lower standards of living. Governments currently provide tax breaks and subsidies to mega-corporations that want to profit from the shift to an “eco-friendly” utopia. Under this system, companies in crony partnership with the government become richer, while regular people become poorer. The elimination of the fossil fuel industry will result in countless job losses, increased poverty due to expensive green energy costs, and limited access to travel and heating.
All the proposed ideas, from banning gas stoves to controlling thermostats and limiting clothing purchases, only serve to eliminate regular people’s freedoms, rather than effectively reducing CO2 emissions.
The Guardian article highlights the desire of climate-crazed scientists and politicians to be in charge of “solutions” to the supposed crisis. However, we should learn from past experiences, such as the post-9/11 security state and the erosion of civil liberties during the Covid pandemic. We should not grant the climate cultists the power to implement their draconian climate measures, similar to what Dr. Anthony Fauci has done.
rnrn
How can governments strike a balance between considering scientific research and expert opinions, while also taking into account broader social and economic factors when formulating climate change policies?
Nomic structure of the world, rather than solely addressing climate change. This highlights the underlying agenda of some policymakers, which is not necessarily in the best interest of the environment or the global population.
The demand for scientists to have more influence over governments and policy-making is concerning. While it is important to consider scientific research and expert opinions when formulating policies, it is equally important to have a balance of perspectives and ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of all stakeholders.
Giving scientists the power to make policy prescriptions and oversee their implementation could potentially lead to a biased and narrow focus on climate change mitigation, without considering the broader social and economic implications. Policies should take into account multiple factors, such as economic development, job creation, and poverty alleviation, rather than solely focusing on reducing carbon emissions.
Furthermore, the call for fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts as a solution to climate change is unfounded and dangerous. Green energy sources have proven to be unreliable and insufficient, and completely abandoning fossil fuels would put millions of people at risk of climate-related deaths. Fossil fuels have played a crucial role in providing essential services and improving living standards.
Technological innovations, including the use of fossil fuels, have significantly reduced climate-related disaster deaths compared to a century ago. It is important to acknowledge the positive impacts that fossil fuels have had on society while also pursuing sustainable and cleaner energy sources.
The concern voiced by scientists about their diminishing authority and the increasing influence of countries is valid. It is crucial to ensure that scientific research is respected and considered in policy-making processes. However, it is equally important to maintain a balance of perspectives and avoid solely relying on a select group of scientists to determine policy outcomes.
In conclusion, while the demand for scientists to have more influence over governments and policy-making is understandable, it is important to consider a balanced approach that takes into account various perspectives and factors. Fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts should not be pursued as a one-size-fits-all solution without considering the potential risks and consequences. Governments should prioritize the well-being of their citizens and consider all aspects when formulating climate change policies, rather than succumbing to narrow agendas or accumulating power.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...