The recent G7 communiqué on climate, energy, and environment policy is laden with the typical rhetoric and ambitious declarations that have come to characterize such international missives. Yet, beneath the surface of urgent calls and reaffirmed commitments lies a web of unaddressed complexities and overly optimistic goals that warrant a closer, more skeptical examination.
The Triple Global Crisis: An Overarching Narrative
The G7 ministers open with a sweeping narrative about the “triple global crisis” of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, further exacerbated by desertification, land, soil and ocean degradation, water scarcity, drought, and deforestation. They assert:
“We reiterate our concerns on the gravity and urgency arising from the interlinked and mutually reinforcing global crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution as well as desertification, land, soil and ocean degradation and water scarcity, drought and deforestation which pose a global threat to sustainable development.”
This passage sets the stage for the G7’s ambitious agenda, framing these crises as cataclysmic and implying a direct linkage with human activity, particularly through emissions and environmental degradation. However, the complexity of these issues is significantly downplayed, and the narrative leans heavily on a presumption of consensus about the causes, trajectories, and solutions to these problems.
Unfeasible Goals and Lack of Clear Methodology
In addressing climate change, the G7’s goals are particularly lofty. They recommit to reaching greenhouse gas emissions net-zero by 2050, a target that has become a staple of international climate policy rhetoric. The communiqué states:
“We reaffirm our commitment to implement immediate, short- and medium-term concrete actions in this critical decade… including to reach greenhouse gas emissions net-zero by 2050 at the latest in order to keep a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach.”
The practicality of such targets is laughable, considering the substantial gap between the current trajectory of national policies and the reductions needed to meet these goals. The plans rely heavily on yet-to-be-perfected technologies and massive socio-economic transformations that are fraught with their own sets of challenges and uncertainties.
The Economic and Social Implications of Green Policies
Economically, the shift toward a net-zero, circular, and climate-resilient economy entails profound changes in energy production, industry, and daily human activities. The G7 pledges to:
“Promote policies and measures including research and development of technologies for energy flexibility and storage, in particular for seasonal variability of energy consumption.”
The push towards renewable energy and the phasing out of fossil fuels, as outlined extensively in the communiqué, is not just a technological shift but also an economic one, impacting everything from energy prices to job markets in traditional sectors. The financial requirements for such a transition are immense, and the G7’s call for mobilizing financial resources from all sources underscores the anticipated economic burden.
Critical Voices and Alternative Views
Amidst these sweeping commitments, the voice of skepticism—that demands rigorous scientific scrutiny and cautious policy-making—is crucial. The G7’s reliance on projections and models necessitates a robust debate about the accuracy of these tools and the viability of their proposed solutions. As history has shown, large-scale policy shifts based on unverified predictive models can lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the very problems they aim to solve.
Conclusion: A Call for Prudence and Realism
As the G7 advances its agenda, it is imperative that these policies are subject to continuous and rigorous scrutiny. The integration of stringent evaluation mechanisms and diverse perspectives from across scientific and economic spectrums will be essential.
________________________________________
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds NASA
Satellite Data Used in Study Finding Significant Greening in Earth’s
Vegetative Areas NOAA
Hardly evidence for desertification
I think they meant dessertification. As in an even better dessert selection at their latest meeting.
“the voice of skepticism”
it’s verboten!
“…the voice of skepticism—that demands rigorous scientific scrutiny and cautious policy-making—is crucial.”
True, but the G7 so far only allows green activist voices in their echo chamber.
“”the “triple global crisis” of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution””
Two of which are easily tackled by nation state[s]. Climate, however, remains global in scope. And from that flow all other weird linkages…
Climate change affects every person on the planet but studies have found it affects women more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60347748
Why climate change is inherently racist
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220125-why-climate-change-is-inherently-racist
When people go along with this stuff you know we’re in deep s**t.
Reduced to the totally absurd.
Does it affect transwomen (i.e., men) more than transmen (i.e., women)? The mind boggles.
From the G7 communique:
“In this context, we welcome the role of Digital Demand Driven Electricity Networks (3DEN) Initiative, supported by the G7 Presidency with the support of IEA, in synergising international collaboration on these topics, in particular with emerging market and developing economies.”
And “We highlight that oil, coal and gas demand reduction is essential to reduce overall CO2 and methane emissions to limit warming to 1.5°C.”
Translation: Rationing of electricity and fuels. Buckle up. Vote for elected officials who reject this agenda.
You can’t vote for elected officials who reject this agenda, there aren’t any.
Exactly.
If a person doesn’t sing in the “climate crisis” choir, they never get to be an “official”.
The choir has become an opera. 🙂
Yes, a ‘Tragedy’ genre of opera.
Usually in 5 acts.
Where are we up to now in the performance?
Should we wait for the Fat Lady to sing, or should we get up and leave now?
Indeed. We are NOT winning.
zero in Wokeachusetts
WEF: You will be poor but you will be happy.
Well, in fairness, those data centres need full operational capacity and steady, clean power ie, not from solar panels or wind turbines. And the state needs its fully functional control mechanisms depending on those data centres in place.
I note that when it comes to global emissions of harmless CO2 the G7 carefully avoids any discussions including or about Chinese and Indian fossil fuel use as if, somehow, CO2 is only released when burning fossil fuels by the very naughty boys from elsewhere.
We really are entitled to expect 100% better from the G7 than this rubbish output which isn’t even scientifically factual.and so when and where is the democratic vote asking us if we want all our money back from this bunch of charlatans and plain untrustworthy crooks?
It is about time we got value for money and not the appalling waste that has been wind, solar and EVs. Decent politicians are needed to replace every last one of these crooks including Biden and the rest. They know who they are and so why can’t they tell the truth for once in their life?
https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022
From the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, CO2 emission rates in MT/yr in 2000 and 2021:
2000 2021 Change
USA 6,004 4,752 – 1,252
Europe (27 nations) 3,577 2,775 – 802
China 3,703 12,466 + 8,763
India 995 2,649 + 1,654
World 25,835 37,858 +12,023
Over the 21-year period from 2000 to 2021, the USA and Europe (of which some nations are in the G7) have both reduced their CO2 emissions, by a combined 2.05 Gt/yr. This more than counteracts the increase from India, which should not be demonized due to their huge population.
China, which has about the same population as India, accounts for about 73% of the emissions increase for the entire world over these 21 years. The increase in emissions from China alone is more than 4 times the reduction in the USA and Europe, so that cutting emissions in the USA and Europe is pointless if China makes no effort to cut their emissions.
Since China continues to build many coal-fired power plants, we can anticipate that their CO2 emissions will continue to rise rapidly over the next few years. Since all the “climate change agreements” are not binding on China, they will continue to do what is in their best interest–build more coal-fired plants so that electricity is cheaper in China than elsewhere, and the rest of the world can go pound sand.
If the USA and Europe can’t convince China to reduce their emissions, then the best thing to do is relax restrictions in the USA and Europe and compete with China on a level playing field.
It seems to me that over the years the people who have done the most damage to the environment overall are ironically the environmentalists themselves (and of course the Communists). Whether you are talking about the misguided total ban on DDT, mining lithium and cobalt for electric car batteries, impoverishing people by shutting down mines and factories, or a host of other poorly thought-out programs. Their heart may (or may not) be in the right place but their brains are shut off.
If Trump gets elected on November 5th, the United States will most likely stop this global warming remediation nonsense (except in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia). But the European countries will continue and unfortunately will impoverish themselves.
Perhaps, but the example might just cause a few to grow a backbone.
Wait and see how the EU elections play out next month as the right has been on the rise in many countries and the EU Parliament could be quite different with the bonus that Usually Fond of Lying will fail to keep her job.
The people who sign these declarations are the ones who will never have to look out of their windows at a meadow despoiled by acres of solar panels or verdant hills blotched by gigantic windmills.
These people are the Vandals of modern times.
They will also never have to sit in a darkened room huddling under a thread worn blanket with a single candle burning wondering if the carbon police will find out.
“We reiterate our concerns on the gravity and urgency arising from the interlinked and mutually reinforcing global crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution as well as desertification, land, soil and ocean degradation and water scarcity, drought and deforestation which pose a global threat to sustainable development.”
These “leaders” don’t even know their own countries, which are among the cleanest, safest, most prosperous nations on earth. Where do they get this parade of horribles? We have clean air, water, and land with increasing biodiversity, longer life expectancies, … Even our “poor” are wealthy by world standards. The “crisis” is that others who don’t have it so good aspire to what we are blessed by, the increasing power of the government-industrial complex (pharma, big food, arms, big tech, etc.), and politicians’ willingness to sell their souls for “30 pieces of silver.” They have become a death cult, and environment is just one of their grim tools.
In the U.S., every acre (hectare) is fully mapped and characterized. Give me a map coordinate, and within a couple of hours I can tell you it’s history and land use, geology, water resources, topography, flood potential, soils, climate, agricultural potential, crop and livestock yields, native and threatened flora and fauna, population density and characteristics (ethnicity, education, income, cost of living, crime, political affiliations).
It takes Marxist, activist politicians like them to screw it up for all of us, elected unfortunately by low-information or trough-feeding voters. They are not clueless, they are hungry for power, privilege, fame and fortune, the rest of us be damned.
nailed it!
‘As history has shown, large-scale policy shifts based on unverified predictive models can lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the very problems they aim to solve.’
“As history has shown”: When has that happened? Examples, please.
how about the model of civilization by Karl Marx?
G7 talk is cheap. Its actions aren’t. If acted on, it won’t be the G7 anymore but rather an impoverished former G7. Already happening in UK and Germany, which will soon lead to G5.
Add Canada and France to that list. And the US if Biden’s reelected.
Are Italy and Japan able to see through this bovine excrement?
Italy’s last election seems to say they have.
The true, unspoken goal of TPTB, with regards to “net zero”, is zero energy delivered to the masses of useless eaters. Our would-be overlords will ALWAYS have plenty of energy available from coal fired, gas fired, and/or nuclear power plants. They will try to maintain some wind turbines and solar cells as window dressing for their hypocritical virtue signaling. This is part of their multipronged plan to reduce the world’s population to the “manageable/sustaiable” level dictated by the first tenet from the now defunct Georgia Guidestones. The monument may have been destroyed, but their goals are still very much in play. These evil bastards are playing the long game, and most of the public have a very short attention span and memory.
Story tip – Green jobs
Guardian to cut journalists’ jobs as it slides back into heavy lossesMedia outlet opens voluntary redundancy programme for its UK-based editorial staff
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/02/guardian-cut-journalists-jobs-advertising-heavy-losses/
So it takes 1016 journalists to write all the cr*p they print?
We cannot continue with the belief we can consume our natural resources without consequences.
It also applies: We cannot continue with the belief we can control weather/climate without consequences.
It is always a good idea to get a true understanding of consequences before making radical changes.
I don’t care what the G7 thinks or says. It is just one more useless world organization pissing our money away and causing trouble. These world organizations don’t work. If they did then we could have settled for the League of Nations, the League didn’t work so we created the United Nations, the United Nations didn’t work so we have outfits like G7 and on and on. I suppose crap like these are inevitable but we shouldn’t pay for them and they shouldn’t have any power or influence.
” in this critical decade… including to reach greenhouse gas emissions net-zero by 2050″
Humans recognize “critical decades” — like the last one, and the one before that, and . . .
Earth doesn’t give squat. 1.5 C degrees and 2050 are meaningless numbers drawn from an emotive wasteland. I’d chose 1.7 and 2053. [See: Prime number]
The G7 countries are losing any relevance. Combined, they are only 30% of the global economy and declining fast.
Global coal consumption in 2023 was 8.5Gt. More than half was consumed in China. Annual growth of coal across Asia now exceeds the total annual consumption in the G7.
Industrial might depends on coal consumption. The G7 are no longer relevant to the global economy.
The USA has retained its dominance in global banking but money relies on backing and real trade. RMB overtook the EUR in trade settlements in 2023. Currencies are fickle. Once confidence is lost the currency deflates rapidly.
In 2023 China built 42.3DWT of ships. Meanwhile USA is trying to build offshore wind turbines and service vessels without much success. I doubt USA now has capacity to build any shipping without outsourcing somewhere in the supply chain.
So what else is new here? Did anyone expect the G7 to make any realistic claims? If it did, how could it justify its preoccupation with banning fossil fuels and adopting renewables? Of course, the whole exercise would result in higher taxes and overall living costs for consumers, but would that be too much to ask in order to save the planet? The facts that the G7 have conveniently overlooked is that all the climate changes during the last 10-12,000 years somehow occurred before human industrial, construction, and transportation activity could have had any effect on them. These changes include the retreat of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, the Little Ice Age, the megadroughts of the Americas that caused the collapse of the Mayan civilization, and all the other climate fluctuations that sober citizens come to expect. But since reality and climate hysteria are at opposite ends of the spectrum, we should expect more of the latter since the next COP conference is unfortunately not far off.
If they were that concerned they’d have held this meeting on Teams or Zoom and saved the emissions from flying to Turin.