Different Climate Policy Directions Around the World

Denmark is gaining attention with its ambitious Greensand Future project, which has now reached its crucial “final investment decision.” This initiative, driven by INEOS, Harbour Energy, and Nordsøfonden, aims to establish the “EU’s first full-scale CO2 storage facility” in the North Sea. The facility is scheduled to start operations by the end of 2025. Initially, the project plans to store an impressive “400,000 tonnes of CO2 annually,” with a future goal of increasing that capacity to “8 million tonnes by 2030.”

In addition to the Greensand Future project, Denmark is taking further steps to support carbon capture and storage with the establishment of a substantial DKK 28.3 billion CCS Fund. This fund is designed to finance various carbon capture and storage projects across the country. A public consultation process is currently underway, allowing citizens and stakeholders to voice their opinions and concerns about these initiatives. The Danish government is also opening applications for exploration of coastal CO2 storage, focusing on three key areas: Jammerbugt, Lisa, and Inez. While these initiatives are presented as vital actions in the fight against climate change, they provoke serious discussions about their efficiency and the economic burden they may impose. The push for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology exemplifies the difficulties in aligning environmental aims with economic realities. Many Western nations depend on taxpayer funding to support these initiatives, raising questions about long-term funding sustainability. The effects of such projects on the global economy are still unclear, as they often seem to reflect ideological agendas rather than practical and feasible solutions to pressing environmental issues.

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen’s Net Zero Push

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen at the WEF said that all continents will have to speed up the transition towards Net Zero, and deal with the growing burden of climate change. Climate change is still on top of the global agenda.

Fear-based Net Zero climate policies have no environmental or scientific justification

Australian senator, Malcolm Roberts says Fear-based Net Zero climate policies have no environmental or scientific justification. The public are starting to wake up that climate change is the greatest display of mass formation psychosis since the Salem witch hunts. All of this is based on faulty science and selective misuse of natural events. People are waking up that the public are being bullied into continued support for policies that achieve nothing except hurt human beings and harm our natural environment.

Trump’s shift in environmental policy

the United States withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord

At the World Economic Forum, President Trump confronted the globalist leaders directly. He made it clear that his administration has put a halt to foreign aid. He announced a significant shift in environmental policy by stating that he is ending initiatives related to climate change, including the “Green New Deal.” Trump declared the United States withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, marking a pivotal change in how the country engages with global climate agreements. He also addressed the electric vehicle mandate, stating that it has been repealed. Furthermore, he highlighted his administration’s push to increase the production of fossil fuels, demonstrating a clear move away from renewable energy sources. This strong stance resonated with his supporters who favour traditional energy strategies over modern environmental policies.

Bloomberg to Fund US UN Climate Dues After Trump’s Withdrawal 

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time, Michael Bloomberg has announced that his philanthropic organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, will cover the US’s unpaid dues to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This move ensures the UNFCCC remains operational despite the federal government’s withdrawal, highlighting the growing role of non-state actors in climate action. The US, which typically contributes 22% of the UNFCCC’s core budget, had already paid its 2024 dues but faced uncertainty over future payments. Bloomberg’s intervention, including a $4.5 million contribution in 2024, underscores the reliance on private funding to sustain global climate efforts. This comes as the UNFCCC’s budget has expanded to support activities beyond annual climate summits, such as year-round negotiations and country report reviews. While this move keeps the US engaged in global climate discussions, it raises questions about the long-term sustainability of relying on private funding for international agreements. Critics argue that such reliance could undermine national sovereignty and shift accountability away from elected governments. Additionally, the push for green energy and climate policies often benefits Western transnational corporations, raising concerns about economic impacts on developing nations and the global economy.

Failure! The UK’s Climate and Nature Bill

The Climate and Nature Bill which was under consideration by the UK Parliament poses a significant threat to British freedoms. This legislation serves as a critical warning to the world about the trajectory of the global green agenda. Under the guise of combating climate change, this Bill obligated the British government to monitor, assess, and regulate every aspect of production and consumption of goods and services. It extends to trade, transport, and financing activities as well, effectively covering all facets of the economy. This extensive reach means that virtually every transaction, large and small, will fall under government scrutiny. As a result, the Bill erodes individual privacy and consumer autonomy. It undermines the principles of free enterprise and infringes on private property rights. The freedoms that UK citizens have long taken for granted are at risk of being restricted. Many commentators have raised concerns that the climate crisis narrative is being used as a cover for an expansive increase in government control, both domestically and globally. This alarmist rhetoric suggests that an exaggerated sense of urgency may be used to justify the establishment of an authoritarian regime reminiscent of Orwell’s dystopian vision. The Climate and Nature Bill marked a pivotal moment in British legislative history, one that could reshape the relationship between the state and its citizens. Its passage would signify a drastic change in how personal freedoms are understood and protected in the UK.

MPs vote to end debate on Climate and Nature Bill

But thanks be unto God, the climate and nature bill failed to clear its first hurdle in the House of Commons. The government won a motion, by 120 votes to seven, to end debate of the bill, meaning it will not return to the House of Commons until July and is unlikely to become law. So, what has been the role of Woke Culture in all this? Take a listen to Konstantin Kisin Woke Culture HAS Gone Too Far.

President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan defends Oil and Gas at COP29

In his speech at the COP29 climate conference, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan made several notable points. Aliyev described oil and gas as a “gift from God,” defending Azerbaijan’s reliance on fossil fuels. He argued that countries should not be blamed for possessing or exporting their natural resources, given that these are demanded by the market. This stance reflects Azerbaijan’s heavy economic dependence on oil and gas, which contributes significantly to its budget and exports. He criticized what he perceived as hypocrisy from Western nations, pointing out that these countries purchase Azerbaijani gas while also condemning the nation for its fossil fuel dependency. His comments were aimed at highlighting what he considers to be double standards in international climate negotiations, especially from countries that are themselves major producers or consumers of fossil fuels.

Climate Change is a hoax

Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that they are far from understanding climate change. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. 

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe