The great Democratic Party President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
So why do the climate catastrophists – like the anti-nuclear energy crowd – use fear as their main tactic for browbeating an unwilling public into accepting their grotesque bans on natural gas, petroleum, and even nuclear energy (not to mention coal)?
The fear mongers used images to scare people into killing Eisenhower’s dream for the “peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” which died after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Fear was the message in the 1959 anti-nuke film On the Beach and the 1964 LBJ “daisy ad” that killed the Goldwater campaign.
While the official death toll from Chernobyl has been raised to 54, radical groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists (whose website does not list a single affiliated scientist) raised money by claiming up to 27,000 would die of additional cancers. Not to be outdone, Greenpeace in 2006 claimed that over 200,000 had already died from Chernobyl-related cancer.
Fear pays. The UCS, also a leading advocate for “green energy,” has an annual budget of about $43 million, while Greenpeace’s may be ten times that amount. Other fear-mongering groups rake in collective billions – dwarfing the revenues of nonprofits who advocate for a balanced, far less disruptive approach to future energy use.
But even fear as a weapon has its limits when people begin to see clearly through the fog. The emperor really was naked. Chicken Little was a bit over the top. The Founding Fathers overcame the fear of failure to win America’s freedom from an oppressive monarch.
Perhaps it was the COVID pandemic that awakened millions across the globe to the reality that there are far more pressing issues today than “climate change” (barring an asteroid or other extra-terrestrial catastrophe or an unprecedented series of volcanic eruptions, both far beyond human control).
Many people resisted taking the COVID vaccines even after illegal mandates were imposed on them that cost jobs and lifelong friendships (even within families).
Fear has led to the neglect and downplaying of important, even urgent, human concerns and allowed the elites to begin restructuring world society to accommodate their belief (or tool for control) that carbon dioxide is an evil that must be eradicated. The carbon conundrum has even confabulated the field of geopolitics and turned allies into enemies and vice versa.
The carbon crisis movement builds on the lie that carbon dioxide, absolutely necessary for human and plant life, is bad for the planet. But Earth has seen widespread fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels, and the science shows that increased atmospheric (or greenhouse) carbon dioxide levels increase plant yields and thus enable feeding a growing world population while keeping the planet “green.”
The media have kept from the masses the confessions of the globalists that they use climate fear to attack the capitalist system. Their goal is to install a single, all-powerful world government with the power to dictate what we eat, what we wear, where we may travel, what jobs we may pursue, and how long we may be allowed to consume oxygen.
Across Europe, farmers are revolting against Commissar-like diktats that they slaughter herds or stop farming altogether. The globalists want to force people to eat laboratory-created “food,” worms, crickets, and algae. Not so secretly, they mumble about drastic reductions in the world human population, which some now believe they seek to accomplish through deadly viruses they are creating in laboratories on multiple continents.
The much softer sell is typified by former White House chef Sam Kass. His clever way to scare people into “climate action” is to host dinners featuring dishes he insists may soon disappear because of the “climate crisis” (rather than poor resource management).
His “Last Supper” (hmm!) features salmon, oysters, chocolate, coffee, and wine – all of which, he claims, “could” disappear altogether because of climate change. According to Kass, a political advisor to former President Barack Obama, “The reality is this is starting to play out right now.”
Lest anyone forget, grapes used to make wine are grown on every continent (Antarctica excluded) in a wide variety of localized climates. Entrepreneurs have for millennia found ways to adapt to changing climates, urbanization, and other intrusions that may force them to relocate to continue turning a profit. But of course, the market is bad – central planning is the only way!
Europeans are now questioning UN, EU, and WEF mandates that would force them into buying expensive heat pumps, electric vehicles, and other inconveniences while adapting to routine blackouts and brownouts resulting from the shuttering of reliable sources of energy. They also see how their leaders’ policies are benefiting the Chinese, whose own cheaper electric vehicles (made with slave labour) are flooding markets.
The global resistance movement is growing, even in Australia, which went into a total panic with lockdowns and arrests during the COVID pandemic. Brave souls gathered on February 6 to greet the new Parliament with a National Rally Against Reckless Renewables.
Many diverse regional communities directly and adversely affected by Aussie government policies demanded the country reestablish an electricity network that is efficient, safe, reliable, secure, and affordable. These policies, they asserted, threaten productive agricultural land, fisheries, and native habitats – worse, the government is subsidizing “greenwashed multinationals”.
Organizers, led by the National Rational Energy Group, condemned the 1,000-plus new “renewable” projects in the government’s “Powering Our Nation” pipeline, almost all of which will negatively impact coastal, farming, or traditional communities with small populations. In many cases, the right of these citizens to judicial review or appeal is being denied.
And what are their demands? First, a Senate inquiry to scrutinize the technical veracity as well as the excessive economic, social, and environmental costs of these “renewable” projects and the escalating risks to the national interest and security. The coalition also demanded an immediate suspension of all “renewable energy” projects until the Senate inquiry has reported its findings.
Imagine such an inquiry regarding the risks to national security of allowing the Chinese to dominate the world automotive marketplace because of their near-total control of the lithium battery market.
Imagine an inquiry as well into the real-world effects of the globalist demands for destroying herds, erasing farmland, and forcing people to purchase heat pumps.
Imagine an inquiry into the likely cost of electricity resulting from electric vehicle mandates and bans on natural gas, coal, and nuclear.
Speaking of nuclear, the coalition also demanded that Australia lift its 25-year-old ban on nuclear energy imposed in 1999 as part of a deal that led to the nation’s renewables-subsidizing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Nuclear has been revived as a favoured option in part because of the $13 billion needed to build 10,000 kilometres of power lines to link up the plethora of renewable energy projects – which will cause havoc in rural Australia. Building modern-day nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal plants would require no new transmission lines at all.
Could the worldwide revolt against the smug globalists who have relied on fear to browbeat nations into adopting the absurd “climate catastrophe” agenda come from the stalwart Australians?
Isn’t it time for people everywhere to demand answers to the serious questions about the real-world costs of imposing the “renewables” agenda be laid out in full?
