MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Paris Agreement’

International Relations according to Antony Blinken, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on March 6, 2021

Washington has little choice: its interests have not changed, but those of its ruling class have. Antony Blinken therefore intends to pursue the line adopted since President Reagan hired Trotskyists to create the NED: to make human rights an imperial weapon, without ever respecting them himself. For the rest, one will avoid getting angry with the Chinese and will try to exclude Russia from the wider Middle East so that the war can continue without end.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article212370.html

by Thierry Meyssan

The Biden Administration performs its first acts of International Relations.

First, Secretary of State Antony Blinken participates in numerous international meetings by video conference, assuring his interlocutors that “America is back. Indeed, the United States is taking up its position in all intergovernmental organisations, starting with the United Nations.

The United Nations

As soon as he took office, President Biden cancelled the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization. Shortly afterwards, Blinken announced that his country was joining the Human Rights Council and was running for president. What’s more, he is campaigning to ensure that only those states that he considers to be respectful of human rights can sit on the Council.

These decisions call for several remarks:

Paris Agreements

- The US withdrawal from the Paris Accords was based on the fact that the IPCC’s work was not scientific, but political, since it is in fact an assembly of senior officials with scientific advisors. They led to, admittedly a lot of promises, but in reality to only one concrete result: the adoption of an international right to pollute managed by the Chicago Stock Exchange. The Chicago Stock Exchange was created by Vice-President Al Gore and its statutes were drafted by the future President Barack Obama. The Trump administration never contested climate change, but argued that other explanations were possible rather than industrial greenhouse gas emissions, for example the geophysical theory formulated in the 19th century by Milutin Milanković.
- The return of the United States to the Paris agreements has caused fear among US shale oil and gas personnel and companies. The Biden Administration is determined to quickly ban petrol-powered cars, for example. This decision will not only have an impact on employment in the US, but also on its foreign policy since it had become the world’s largest oil exporter.

WHO

- The US withdrawal from the WHO was motivated by China’s leading role in the WHO. The current Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is a member of the pro-Chinese Tigray People’s Liberation Front. In addition to his UN function, he has also played a central role in supplying arms to the Tigray rebellion.
- The WHO delegation that went to Wuhan to investigate the possible Chinese origin of the Covid-19 included Dr. Peter Daszak, president of the NGO EcoHealth Alliance, as the only US member. This expert funded work on coronaviruses and bats at the P4 laboratory in Wuhan. He is therefore clearly judge and jury.

Human Rights Council

- The US withdrawal from the Human Rights Council was the consequence of the Trump administration’s denunciation of its hypocrisy. In fact, the Council had been used in 2011 by the US itself to hear false witnesses and to accuse the “Gaddafi regime” of having bombed an eastern district of Tripoli; an event that never happened. This memorable staging had been transmitted to the Security Council, which had adopted a resolution authorising the West to “protect” the Libyan population from its infamous dictator. Given the success of this propaganda operation, various states and alleged NGOs have tried to use the Council in turn, particularly against Israel.
- The United Nations does not understand the term “human rights” as does the United States. For the latter, Human Rights are simply protection from the Reason of State, which implies the prohibition of torture. On the contrary, for the United Nations, the term also includes the right to life, education and the right to work, etc. From this point of view, China has important progress to make in terms of justice, but has an exceptional record in terms of education. It therefore has its rightful place in the Council, although Washington disputes this.
- Antony Blinken has just enunciated the “Khashoggi jurisprudence”. It is a question of no longer granting visas to foreign political leaders who do not respect the human rights of their opponents. But what value does this doctrine have when the United States has a gigantic targeted assassination service and sometimes uses it against its own nationals?

Iran and the future of the Greater Middle East

The Biden Administration is also negotiating a return to the 5+2 nuclear agreement with Iran. The aim is to resume the negotiations that William Burns, Jake Sullivan and Wendy Sherman began 9 years ago in Oman with the emissaries of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Today they have become respectively Director of the CIA, National Security Advisor and Deputy Secretary of State.

At the time, Washington’s aim was to eliminate President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and relaunch the Shia/Sunni confrontation in the context of the “war without end” (Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy). For the Khamenei Guide, it was to get rid of Ahmadinejad who had dared to strike against him and to extend his power over all the Shiites in the region.

These negotiations led to the manipulation of the Iranian presidential election of 2013 and the victory of the pro-Israeli Sheikh Hassan Rohani. As soon as he took office, he sent his foreign minister, Mohammad Djavad Zarif, to negotiate in Switzerland with Secretary of State John Kerry and his adviser Robert Malley. This time it was a question of closing the Iranian military nuclear file before witnesses, which everyone knew had long since been completed. Then came a year of secret bilateral negotiations on Iran’s regional role, called to resume the role of Middle East policeman under Shah Reza Pahlevi. Finally, the nuclear agreement was signed with great pomp and circumstance.

But in January 2017, the Americans elected Donald Trump, who questioned the agreement. President Rohani then published his project for the Shiite and allied states (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Azerbaijan): to federate them into a great empire under the authority of the Guide of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is on this new basis that the Biden Administration must henceforth negotiate.

But the United States can only position itself in the broader Middle East once it has decided what it is going to do with its two rivals: Russia and China. The Department of Defense has appointed a Commission that is working on the subject and will issue its recommendations in June. In the meantime the Pentagon intends to continue what it has been doing for 20 years: the “war without end”. The aim of the war being to destroy any possibility of resistance in the region, and thus to destroy all state structures, whether friendly or enemy, there was no a priori question of accepting the Rohani project.

Washington began contacts in November, three months before President Biden took office. This is exactly what the Trump administration had done with Russia, which led to legal action under the Logan Act. This time it is different. There will be no lawsuits because the Biden administration is unanimously supported by everything that matters in Washington.

Moreover, the Iranian-US negotiations are taking place in the East. Tehran and Washington are holding hostages to keep pressure on each other. Each one arrests spies, or if they are not tourists, and imprisons them for the duration of an investigation that is dragging on for a long time. It has to be said that they are better treated in the West than in Iran where they are subjected to constant psychological pressure.

To begin with, Washington maintained its sanctions against Iran, but lifted those it had taken against the Houthis in Yemen. It has also turned a blind eye to the South Korean channel that allows Iran to circumvent its embargo. But that wasn’t enough.

From February 15 to 22, Iran launched – through its Iraqi affiliates – commando actions against US forces and companies in Iraq; a way of showing that it is more legitimate in that country than Uncle Sam is. For their part, the Israelis accused Iran of having caused an explosion in a tanker belonging to one of their companies in the Gulf of Oman on February 25.

The Secretary of State responded by sending the Pentagon to bomb installations used by Shiite militias in Syria, a way of showing that the United States is illegally occupying this country whose authorities are suffering from Iranian sectarian aid – today Iran is not helping the Syrians, but those of them who are Shiites – and that they will have to come to terms with it.

China

See the rest here

Article licensed under Creative Commons

The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What Bill Gates is Really Up To

Posted by M. C. on February 23, 2021

“I have no problem with a guy making investments wherever he wants, that is the American way. But when such an investor attempts to sway governments to move the entire world, through regulation, in a direction that will benefit him that is a different story. It appears we are at the “different story” stage when it comes to Bill Gates.”

No doubt the plan is to turn the land into producing crops that will be the ingredients of the fake hamburgers that he says rich countries must adopt.

Look for climate lockdown.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2021/02/what-bill-gates-is-really-up-to.html

Bill Gates is out with a new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need

He is hitting the talk show circuit promoting the book and the idea that the planet is headed for a major climatological disaster that will end the human species.

Setting aside as to whether or not there is some climatological disaster developing, Gates’ book should really be named “How I Plan to Make Even More Billions By Getting Governments to Fund Every Mad Scheme I Have Invested In”.

Gates would like for you to think of him as the sweater-wearing billionaire next door.

The only association he lists on his LinkedIn page is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In reality, he is running vast enterprises in many sectors of the economy.

He has invested in a company that is trying to produce lab-made “breast” milk.

He is now the owner of more farmland than anyone else in the United States:

No doubt the plan is to turn the land into producing crops that will be the ingredients of the fake hamburgers that he says rich countries must adopt.

Since he runs his operations privately, it is difficult to know everything he is invested in but it appears that everything he is promoting that is visible (along with his demands for government action) is usually tied up with massive personal investments made by him.

One sector where he has vast investments, that may be too difficult to hide since he has brought on too many billionaire buddies as partners, is the energy sector. With so many partners, something might leak so he is being a bit transparent about his investments.

He even mentions offhandedly his energy enterprise, Breakthrough Energy, in his new book and reports how he roped in his billionaire pals to join him, curiously, just before the Paris Agreement was signed:

In September, two months before the Paris conference started, I emailed two dozen wealthy acquaintances, hoping to persuade them to commit venture funding to complement the government’s new money for research. Their investments would need to be long-term – energy breakthroughs that can take decades to develop – and they would have to tolerate a lot of risk. To avoid the potholes that the venture capitalists had run into, I committed to help build a focus team of experts who would vet the companies and help them navigate the complexities of the energy industry.

I was delighted by the response. The first investor said yes in less than 4 hours. By the time the Paris conference kicked off two months later, 26 more had joined, and we had named it the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. Today, the organization now known as Breakthrough Energy includes philanthropic programs, advocacy efforts, and private funds that have invested in more than 40 companies with promising ideas.

Note he is clearly talking about investments here and not non-profit donations. 

So just who might be in this group that Gates summoned via email to send checks?

Breakthrough Energy lists as among its investors:

  • Jeff Bezos, (founder of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post)
  • Saudi billionaire HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
  • Michael Bloomberg, founder and owner of Bloomberg News
  • Richard Branson
  • The manager of the largest hedge fund in the world, Ray Dalio
  • Reid Hoffman, co-founder of Linked-In
  • Abigail P. Johnson, chairman of the parent company of the Fidelity mutual fund company 
  • Jack Ma of Alibaba Group
  • David Rubenstein of The Carlyle Group
  • Ben & Lucy Ana Walton (WalMart)

It is quite the list. With this group as part of his investment team, he has some pretty serious players who now have an incentive to not promote a narrative about climate change that is different from that of Gates.
Oh, and by the way,  Breakthrough Energy has ten senior “policy advocates.” Yes, ten, including the following who are all Washington D.C. based:

  • Allison Zelman, Director, U.S. Policy and Advocacy, has worked in three Presidential cycles, in senior roles on the Hillary Clinton campaign and both Obama Presidential campaigns. She founded the Obama Alumni Association and lives in Washington, D.C.
  • Conor Hand, Manager, U.S. Policy and Advocacy, among other work has done stints with Bernie 2016, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
  • Robin Millican, Director, U.S. Policy and Advocacy, was a senior strategy consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton.
  • Abigail Regitsky, Senior Associate, U.S. Policy and Advocacy, was professional staff for the majority on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
  • Cristina Shoffner, Associate, U.S. Policy and Advocacy, worked as policy advisor to U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senate Democratic Leadership and prior to her Senate work, she was appointed to the White House Council on Environmental Quality under President Obama.

Got the picture? From this one Gates operation alone, there is a massive high-level influence operation promoting the Gates “the world is coming to an end” theme with a slew of billionaires backing the operation.
Here are the firms Breakthrough Energy has publicly disclosed it has investments in:

  • 1366 Technologies, a solar wafer company
  • 75F, a smart sensor company
  • Arnergy, replaces foosil fuel generators with modularized solar +lithium ion storage systems in emerging markets
  • Baseload Capital, invests in sustainable heat power plants
  • Biomilq, cultured breastmilk production
  • Boston Metal, produces steel with less CO2 emissions
  • C16, produces sustainable alternatives to palm oil using biotechnology
  • Carbon Cure, decarbonizes concrete
  • CommonWealth Fusion Systems, fusion energy
  • DMC,  microbial fermentation
  • enVerid, an air quality company
  • ESS, specializes in a “cleaner future”
  • Fervo Energy, a geothermal energy company
  • Form Energy, long duration energy storage
  • KoBold Metals, increases “ethical” supply of battery storage
  • Lilac Solutions, transforming lithium production from brine resources to enable exponential growth of electric vehicles
  • Malta, grid scale energy storage
  • Max, building technology infrastructure and financial services for urban mobility in Africa
  • Motif, A food ingredients company offering sustainable alternative proteins and ingredient solutions for innovative food producers
  • Natel Energy, Delivering sustainable, reliable, renewable energy from moving water with innovations that restore and reconnect watersheds
  • Natures Fynd, a food tech company producing a new-to-the-world sustainable protein
  • Pachama, unlocking the full potential of forests to remove carbon using AI and satellites
  • Pivit Bio,  a new source of nitrogen for regenerative agriculture
  • Quantumscape, reinventing the battery for electric vehicles
  • Quidnet, powers the carbon-free electric grid with long duration Geomechanical Pumped Storage
  • Redwood, building a sustainable future by creating circular supply chains, turning waste into profit and solving the environmental impacts of new products.
  • Sierra Energy, “The path to zero waste”
  • Source, perfect water for every person in every place by making drinking water an unlimited resource around the world. 
  • SparkMeter offers grid-management solutions that enable utilities in emerging markets to run financially-sustainable, efficient, and reliable systems. 
  • ZeroAvia, “the first practical zero-emission aviation powertrain.”

Just take a look at the above list again, Gates has every possible anti-fossil fuel angle covered.
Every time, he is promoting his climate disaster theme because of fossil fuels, he is pushing spending in the direction of the companies above.
I can’t even imagine the amount of money he is pumping into these companies with his crony buddies. Remember, Gates alone is worth $129 billion. It would be nothing for him to pump in a billion dollars on his own. Combined with his buddies, it must be an enormous amount of money.
And who knows what Gates has invested in other sectors where he feels no pressure to disclose.
I have no problem with a guy making investments wherever he wants, that is the American way. But when such an investor attempts to sway governments to move the entire world, through regulation, in a direction that will benefit him that is a different story. It appears we are at the “different story” stage when it comes to Bill Gates.
RW

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Two Years After Trump’s Exit from the Paris Agreement, It’s Proven To Be a Farce | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 6, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/two-years-after-trumps-exit-paris-agreement-its-proven-be-farce

Paris Agreement Was Going to “Fail” Even On Its Own Terms

The most important point to emphasize is that the Paris Agreement was not going to deliver humanity from the scourge of climate change, if we stipulate the alarmist rhetoric for the sake of argument. From the website ClimateActionTracker.org, here is the latest estimate of the Paris pledges and the implied level of global warming through the year 2100:

thermom-768x761.png

As the figure shows, even if all of the countries (including the U.S., which is still technically part of the Agreement) met their Paris pledges, warming is projected to hit 3.0 degrees Celsius—well beyond the “safe” levels of either 1.5 or at most 2.0 degrees, which are the now-fashionable targets.

What’s worse, the figure also shows that the actual policies now in place will yield projected warming of 3.3 degrees Celsius, because it’s easier to promise to do something than to actually do it…

Empty Pledges Are a Feature, Not a Bug

Now to be sure, the fans of the Paris Agreement would dismiss my criticism above, by arguing that once the basic framework of a global agreement is in place, then we can tighten down the screws and get some serious emission reductions.

Yet this is foolish optimism. The only reason so many countries signed up for Paris is that the pledges were non-binding, and beyond that, in many cases the pledges were virtually meaningless.

For example, Oren Cass back in 2015 explained that the “Intended National Determined Contributions” (INDC) of India and China were arguably less ambitious than what would probably happen under business-as-usual. In other words, India and China’s initial “bids” for what they could do to help in the battle against climate change, involved no actual sacrifice since it’s normal for countries to reduce their emissions-per-unit-of-GDP over time.

Even more hilarious, in a 2017 article Cass quoted from Pakistan’s pledge, which was “committed to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” If you think about it, every country could quite confidently make such a pledge: Once emissions reach their peak, they would come down thereafter. That’s why the peak level would be a peak, after all.

To repeat, this is not a coincidence. The only way to get all of the governments of the world to sign on to Paris, was for them each to realize that they weren’t actually on the hook for anything…

Just look at the squabbling and chaos as more and more governments experience voter backlash against restrictions on conventional energy. Here’s how a lamenting New York Times article explained the situation back in December:

In August [2018], an effort in Australia to transition away from coal…resulted in the ouster of the prime minister. The man who succeeded him, Scott Morrison, endeared himself to the industry by bringing a lump of coal into Parliament.

In November, Brazilians elected Jair Bolsonaro, who had pledged to promote agribusiness interests in the Amazon forest…

In Poland, the host country of the latest United Nations talks, the right-wing president, Andrzej Duda, opened the negotiations by saying flatly that his country did not intend to abandon coal.

…Emissions in China have grown for the past two years, signaling the difficulties of shifting the country away from its coal-dependent industrial economy. Germany is having a hard time moving away from lignite because of political opposition in the country’s coal-rich east. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, faces unrest at home over a layer cake of taxes that working-class people say burdens them unfairly.

As the examples above indicate—and they ignore the plunging fortunes of aggressive climate action in Canada too—this is certainly not the fault of Donald Trump. Around the world, the natives are getting restless, and finally saying “enough is enough” to the technocratic “solutions” that drive up energy prices without even solving the ostensible problem of climate change.

Conclusion

President Trump has followed through on his campaign promises to roll back counterproductive regulations on energy, far more than most of us thought would be politically feasible. The Paris Agreement never had a chance of seriously denting global emissions, and all along has been a vehicle to redistribute wealth, to the tune of trillions of dollars, as I explained here at IER several years ago.

Since even the most ardent environmental activists admit that the Paris Agreement hasn’t come close to “solving” the problem of climate change, they should actually be thanking Trump for being the first to announce that it doesn’t work and ending this farce.

Be seeing you

stuck in ice

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2017

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/10/real-climate-science-shows-trump-was-right-to-exit-paris/

The Professor’s assertion is also logically invalid, since the Paris Agreement permits China, India and other developing countries to industrialize and burn fossil fuels, with no limit on their emissions and no date by which they must stop. That means major energy and economic sacrifices by the USA and other industrialized nations would not “save humanity” even if the “dangerous manmade global warming” hypothesis were true.

The Paris treaty is not about climate change

In actual intent and practice, the Paris Agreement is a political tool for suppressing growth, instituting global governance over energy use and economic growth, and redistributing wealth.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, clearly spelled out that aim. Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated that it was not about climate but that, for the first time, it gave them the tools to replace capitalism. Former UNFCCC section director Ottmar Edenhofer bluntly said climate agreements are actually about how “we de factoredistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

So whenever you hear about a new climate change agreement, think “Screw US”.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »