UN Terrifies Youth To Push 'Polycrisis'
TV naturalist Chris Packham says it’s time to break laws to save Earth
There is no effort to shift gradually to a low-consumption, low-energy society
UN seeks to use emergencies to force change: order out of chaos
Lack of rational debate exposes intentional longing for catastrophe as change
Campaigners decry lack of action on Climate Change, yet leaders talk of little else
Climate is the crisis that keeps on giving; the real aim is centralising control
While the owners keep their precious oil, gas and hydrocarbons in the ground
Globalist technocrats want you to lose faith in politicians so they can take over
Emergency measures subverting democracy to impose order
‘Hate speech’ laws will be used to deplatform and silence criticism
A leading critic of Net Zero is co-founder of Greenpeace Dr Patrick Moore. It was another Moore, Michael, who supported the Jeff Gibbs documentary, Planet Of The Humans (2020) which asked essential questions — not about Climate Change but the honesty of the policy response.
The ‘Green energy’ series:
Not Enough Minerals For Green Energy - Putting the D in population (Sep 08, 2022)
UN Terrifies Youth To Push 'Polycrisis' (Sep 24, 2023)
Europe's Parallel Reality: C02 & Degrowth (May 09, 2024)
See Related:
Hate And Depopulate (Aug 24, 2022)
When The Skies Were Free - Clouds, currency and carbon (Jun 12, 2022)
Follow The Consensus To Your Demise (Aug 9, 2023)
Germany May Ban Opposition Party - Narrative Babel breaks down (Jan 21, 2024)
The Great Replacement Of Everything (Jul 21, 2024)
(2,500 words or 12 minutes of your company).
Sep 24, 2023
The UN can’t decide if it loves a crisis or fears it. Campaigners and journalists make a Greek chorus of doom, their hands fluttering like Extinction Rebellion’s ladies cloaked in crimson silks.
Television wildlife evangelist Chris Packham stole the headlines when he called for legal protest: “If you’re an activist that’s made a decision to break the law, as long as no one is hurt and there’s no lasting environmental damage. Then you’ll have my support.” [1]
A predictable row ensued.
Behind the faux outrage is the question: Why is there no plan to transition society gradually, but an endless focus on crisis? Polycrisis, cascading crises, global boiling, wild fires, winters of “severe illness and death” and carbon, carbon, carbon.
Where is the plan for a low-consumption, low-energy society? Campaigners rarely acknowledge the glaring absence of any plan to gradually shift from the intensive use of hydrocarbons.
We would have to live differently. Build homes with different layouts and materials, that stay cool or retain heat. Change traditional living patterns, share utilities. Grow our own food to save on supermarket deliveries. Capture and filter water locally. Teach children at home, or at least locally, so that we no longer need massive and costly schools.
Owners can’t let go
Society could transition gradually to less energy use, and local energy generation. It would require a massive feat of social engineering and it would entail a dispersion of control.
In contrast, changing society through a climate emergency, or any emergency, as we see with ULEZ and SMART meters, carbon taxes and proposals for central bank digital currency (aka rationing) — centralises control.
Secondly, the energy crisis was caused, in part, by the centralised control of energy — and they don’t want to give up control.
The owner-investors claim they are serious about ending the use of petrol and diesel-fueled engines are a location independent form of distributed energy, with an efficient power-to-weight ratio — in other words calorific-intense. Yet the owners’ answer is to further centralise the control of energy by limiting access and range.
The young might embrace such a new start if it was presented to them. Did you hear anything like that from politicians or corporations?
Instead, the state corporate media and the banks have them running around in Che Guevara shirts demanding, “we want a mortgage, and we want it now!”
Dialectic and division
Packham’s breathless, TikTok-style delivery, begins with the emotional screams of a young woman, talks of disaster, conflates rising temperatures and pesticides, which is presumably what he blames for the loss of wildlife in his documentary, “Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?” (Channel 4) [2]
“We should be on a war footing, because this is going to act like war,” says John Gummer, now Lord Deben, chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. “A whole generation of people are waking up to the fact that we have destroyed their future.”
Listen to the documentary — timed to coincide with Climate Week and months before COP28 in Dubai (Nov 30-Dec 12, 2023) — and there is lots of dialectic and division: demonising the unbelieving elders, and demanding that “something must be done.”
Read The Guardian review and you will see little mention of what it is, exactly, that is not being done.
Why not a documentary that seeks to persuade; that brings together arguments and supporters. That is not how the eco movement rolls.
Leave aside the justice of the cause. Will young television viewers realise how unlikely that state or corporate television would allow a genuine “rebel” to rouse them to revolt — being controlled by the same interests whom he says are ignoring the crisis?
We might as well admit that the Gettys, Rockefellers and oil interests finance much of the environmental movement. It would reveal that the wealthiest profit from the renewables, heavily subsidized by the taxpayer; which conserves their oil and gas in the ground — see “Planet Of The Humans.”
Just think if the Bolsheviks had had the ability to make videos like this to justify the dispossession of the bourgeoisie, using the same plentiful emotion and absence of detail?
Actually they did. Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin is a masterclass. The youth were manipulated then, as now.
Packham hones in on Just Stop Oil, the activist group that is frequently protected by British police, while claiming they “challenge authority.”
“What do you do if you have lost confidence in politicians to deal with this crisis?” Packham says.
Put the corporations in charge — as Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum advise? Appoint unelected “citizens’ assemblies” to give legitimacy to mandates and orders that bypass parliament?
Talk, no action
At Climate Week, UN under-secretary Li Junhua said conflict, climate and Covid had slowed progress: “we have entered an age of polycrisis.”
Stop right there. Is crisis the obstacle — or the opportunity declared three years ago?
Even if the pandemic “just happened” organically, the response had been planned over decades and rehearsed in detail at Event 201 in Oct 2019. King Charles and numerous leaders said in Jun 2020 that Covid was a golden opportunity to fix the climate, to implement Sustainable Development Goals, and to reset the social and economic system.
Globalist journal Politico noted the failure of presidents and prime ministers to attend Climate Week. [3]
Campaigners often complain that politicians pay little attention to climate. There remains a “massive lack of international climate financing,” it writes, echoing the UN’s SDG Report that it’s falling behind on its 2030 targets.
The beef seems to be that politicians and the powerful maintain a “deafening silence” on climate change. That’s strange. Because everywhere we look, Climate Change is the justification, for:
arson and wildfires
pandemics and viruses jumping from animal to human,
the replacement of Covid lockdown with a Climate lockdown,
quarantine and the need to stay home, now called 15-minute cities,
vaccine passports and QR, now called online safety and age verification,
demands to limit CO2, which creates oxygen, and H2O, the ultimate renewable,
phasing out of coal, oil, gas power stations, and internal combustion engines,
not investing in energy infrastructure, while demanding electric everything,
restrictions on car transport and air travel, and shutting airports by 2050,
seizing farms and closing them, killing cattle and rewilding land,
food shortages, supply chain disruption and rationing,
universal basic income and central bank currencies.
Tell 3,000 Dutch farmers that politicians have a deafening silence on Climate Change. Farmers are committing suicide in unprecedented numbers as they are forced to shut down in the name of reducing nitrogen and carbon dioxide emissions.
The truth is that politicians talk about climate all the time. If they don’t do anything, that is by design. Actions always speak louder than words. The Center for Government says “It’s easy to think of ‘inaction’ as simply the lack of action, but it isn’t that simple. Inaction is an action. It’s a conscious choice to maintain the status quo.” [4]
How do campaigners and commentators honestly conclude that politicians are silent on climate? What precisely should politicians be doing that they are not? Outlets like the otherwise excellent Media Lens do not say except, it seems, “govern me harder.” This is characteristic. [5]
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.