The Crisis Of The Green Agenda In Europe In The Run-Up To COP-26

Support SouthFront

The Crisis Of The Green Agenda In Europe In The Run-Up To COP-26

The European Parliament

DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK :

BITCOIN (BTC): bc1qv7k70u2zynvem59u88ctdlaw7hc735d8xep9rq
The Crisis Of The Green Agenda In Europe In The Run-Up To COP-26
BITCOIN CASH (BCH): qzjv8hrdvz6edu4gkzpnd4w6jc7zf296g5e9kkq4lxThe Crisis Of The Green Agenda In Europe In The Run-Up To COP-26
MONERO (XMR): 49HqitRzdnhYjgTEAhgGpCfsjdTeMbUTU6cyR4JV1R7k2Eej9rGT8JpFiYDa4tZM6RZiFrHmMzgSrhHEqpDYKBe5B2ufNsL

The Crisis Of The Green Agenda In Europe In The Run-Up To COP-26

PAYPAL, WESTERN UNION etc: write to info@southfront.org , southfront@list.ru

In less than two weeks, the UK is preparing to host in Glasgow, Scotland, the biggest international event for supporters of the climate change agenda – the 26th UN Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is certainly giving this event a big role, for it was to the issue of climate change that he devoted his speech at the UN General Assembly, where he arrogantly recommended that other leaders of the international community “grow up” and pay attention to what he sees as important issues, i.e., “green” policy. It is difficult to know for sure what his motives were: either to gain the status of an environmentalist, or to gain popularity among the marginalized urban youth who zealously advocate for the eco-environment agenda. Either way, it does not matter, because the British prime minister’s plan has failed.

The EU’s utopian energy transition and Net zero projects are losing their appeal as costly renewable energy sources are developed and as the hydrocarbon crisis approaches, which has already led to panic in the EU, natural gas price hikes, and power outages in Asia. As we know, it has come to the point that the EU countries, faced with a shortage of LNG, have begun to buy from Russia, although before that they actively criticized Russia itself for its use of this non-environmental, almost barbaric from their point of view, energy source.

The economic leaders in Western Europe are faced with rising production costs due to rising electricity prices, for example, Germany, one of the flagships in the introduction of “green” energy sources, now has the highest electricity prices in Europe. Poorer countries have it much easier – they have no money to implement programs to develop a green economy. Delegates from developing countries complain about high costs even if they speak about participation in the notorious Glasgow conference, and then what can be said about wind turbines and electric cars.

Regarding this dichotomy between developed and developing countries, there is a very illustrative case. It is no secret that wind turbines, for all their claimed environmental friendliness, have a very big disadvantage: no adequate way to recycle their blades, made of carbon fiber, has been invented yet. And when the “green economists” from the Netherlands were asked how they solved this problem, they answered without the slightest embarrassment that they send obsolete components for reuse to Ukraine. And for them there was not even a contradiction between their ideals of environmental protection and objective reality. Either these economists have a special attitude to Ukraine.

The upcoming COP26 is rapidly losing credibility. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has already refused to participate, apparently in light of Chinese own national energy problems. It is probably difficult against the background of the shortage of energy resources and increased coal purchases from Russia to substantively discuss the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and net zero programs. It is logical to assume that the absence of such a significant participant in the global economy will have a bad effect on the mood of the participants, if not on the expediency.

In contrast to Johnson’s optimism about the substance of the conference, Queen Elizabeth II spoke more substantively: “It is very annoying when they talk but do nothing”.

As the global economy rises from the global lockdown and needs more electricity, nationally oriented elites seek first and foremost to support the real sector and the well-being of citizens, returning to the environmental agenda later when they can, since the burden of introducing elements of cleaner production may now be beyond the means of many enterprises. The apologists for environmentalism in politics are the supranational elites seeking European or Euro-Atlantic integration, and in order to achieve these goals they will not hesitate to dilute the power of national states and reduce their economic potential. The imposition of green energy and the climate change agenda has become an extremely convenient tool for this purpose. States that are suffering from lockdown and striving to return to pre-COVID levels risk falling under sanctions without an environmental policy, and with it, falling into debt bondage from international financial institutions, not having enough money for wind turbines and silicon panels. Either way, the outcome benefits the globalists, but not the nation-states and their citizens.

It is also important to note why the problem raised here is particularly relevant for Europe. The region, despite its technological development, is extremely vulnerable in terms of energy. Coal is recognized as obsolete and dangerous to the environment, gas supplies come from unfriendly Russia, and the nuclear industry has been shut down for decades under pressure from alarmists frightened by the risk of accidents at nuclear facilities. The U.S., China and Russia in the case of various energy problems have ways out in the form of a resource base and developed or actively developing nuclear energy, which, by the way, is also environmentally friendly, but does not appear in the global agenda, unlike renewable energy. It does not look like a simple coincidence.

An already vulnerable Europe is now awaiting the outcome of the UN climate conference in Glasgow, and the outcome is unlikely to be favorable for national economies. Doug Hammarskjöld, the UN’s second secretary-general, said: “The UN was not created to lead humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell.” Well, as of today, it does not appear that the organization is fulfilling even this function.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
block

I could not even get through the entire article. Any western funded MAJOR “green agenda or movement” is in reality satanic funded “liberal” stupidity.

Divide and conquer the masses with meaningless causes, as a form of distraction. You can see it throughout the MSM, hollywood, social media etc.

Tommy Jensen

Its a business scheme for the British Empire and Queen.
By year 2000 they had found so much gas and oil globally, so they had to held crisis meetings every month to keep the oil price artificially high.
The invention of the “CO2 problem” and wind energy is to force nation states into borrowed money from British controlled global bankers, precisely as described in the article.

SuzanneChesnut

uik