The Pendulum Has Swung: Climate Alarmism is on a Decline

Well, there evidently is a moratorium on climate alarmism and the climate change deception as a whole. We saw this when people began to note the inaccuracy of climate disaster predictions, we saw this when people questioned the claimed natural occurrence of certain weather disasters (which brought weather modification discourse to the fore), we saw this even when the climate youth influencer – Gretha Thunberg – discussed less about climate change and pivoted to other concerns, such as claiming all sorts about Israel (including that they abducted her, when they literally fed her and her flotilla companions, and put them in a plane that took them home). But, more recently, we also saw this moratorium when Bill Gates, (just before COP30) promulgated the view that climate disaster alarmism ought not to be pursued with the vigour that many do, because the earth will likely be around for a very long time. Well, similar to all of these changes that reflect a decline in climate alarmism, COP30 experienced a shock when people who had committed to being at COP30, rejected a key focus – and today, we ought to address this further because indeed the pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is on a notable decline.

COP30 WAS BASED ON A MISCHARACTERISED UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUS QUO

The pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is on a notable decline; and to begin with, I’d like to address the fundamental and strategic flaw among the organisers of COP30 – which is that they mischaracterised the status quo, as it pertains to genuine environmental issues. Of course, this might be generous language on my part, because it very well could NOT be a mischaracterisation, and was instead the COP30 organisers doubling down on a deceptive narrative. However, it nevertheless is a gross mischaracterisation, and I say that understanding that it is also the irony of deception that those who are deceived often do not know that they are.

So, what is the mischaracterisation? Well, the UN climate chief Simon Stiell was in fine hysterical form at the start of the COP30 conference in Belém, telling delegates that squabbling would not be forgiven while famines take hold, forcing millions to flee their homelands. His exact words were (quote) “To falter whilst megadroughts wreck national harvests, sending food prices soaring, makes zero sense economically and politically.” Now, these words almost sound noble, except that they are contradicted and overshadowed by the fact that the COP30 organisers cut down 100,000 mature rainforest trees so that 50,000 other COP delegates can hear them. 

But, despite the sentiments from the UN climate chief Simon Stiell, herein lies the mischaracterisation of the status quo: over the last 30 years, higher crop yields (thanks to hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser and increases in global biomass caused by a slight increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) … these higher crop yields have led to the almost complete elimination of natural famine. Which is why climate alarmist cannot adequately define a climate refugee (even through they continuously churn out the false rhetoric that billions are already on the move try to escape climate change disasters).

In reality, over the last 25 years, natural famine, that primarily caused by environmental factors such as droughts and heat, has become exceedingly rare. In fact, natural famine mortality has been falling dramatically over the last 100 years. The nuance (which climate alarmists conveniently skip over is that almost all famines (at least since the last 100 years) are caused by local conflicts or senseless outbreaks of political ideology. For example, Chairman Mao Zedong’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ in the late 1950s destroyed traditional farming in China and led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation. And ironically, if the hard-Left Net Zero advocates would implement their plans and abolish hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser across the globe, even higher numbers of people, stretching into billions, will starve.

But it was not just Simon Stiell who had ideas divorced from reality. In addition, former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo was also at COP30 and offered the opinion that (quote) “we’ll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food.” Now, either that is a very hardline alarmist and pessimistic opinion on the state of the climate, or it is flat out wrong – neither of which are not concerning. And I say this because (as far as what science evidences) you cannot destroy H20 (or water). Water molecules are made of atoms. Chemical and nuclear reactions rearrange these atoms, but the atoms themselves are never created or destroyed. Additionally, while the water is “broken apart,” the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are still present. And so, in other words, water cannot be easily “destroyed” by heat in the typical sense, as it is a very stable molecule that is actually a product of combustion (which is a burning). And while this is said as a refutation of the claim from former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo, it is impossible to miss that it also testifies of how utterly incredible God’s detail to creation is. So, no: there is not a reality where weather heat can destroy water; and even those who separate water molecules will tell you that it requires excessive amounts of heat that exceed (I believe) 3000 degrees celsius. And so, the very primary concerns that were expressed at COP 30 were gross mischaracterisation of reality or the status quo. Frankly, it is amazing what you discover when you question and poke holes into the alarmist sentiments that are promulgated. But, as you can imagine, those were not the only concerns from COP30.

COP30 CLIMATE ALARMISM IGNORES CENTURIES OF ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN CLIMATE

Additionally, it is worth noting that mischaracterisations fueling the climate alarmism at COP30 ignores how people have always adapted to changes in the climate or environment. This is to say, that firstly, there have been no statistically worsening trends of climate impacts. But, in addition, there have been many improvements in humans adapting to whatever nature has thrown against them. We have ways of keeping water cumulatively for dry seasons, non-GMO means of ensuring a higher crop yield, and seed cleaning strategies that lead to more reliable and uniform growth; among many others.

Meanwhile, evidence continues to accumulate showing the Earth is increasing biomass at a considerable rate as higher levels of CO2, partly helped by humans using hydrocarbons, rescue the atmosphere from the near-denuded levels of the immediate past. Additionally, more CO2 in the atmosphere has boosted plant growth almost everywhere, leading to notable de-desertification in marginal living areas in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Another advantage is that plants growing with more CO2 need less water and can survive in areas where local droughts occur. More biomass also leads to a healthier planet with massive benefits cascading through the ecosystem. All of this is ignored by the COP30 attendees. But, as they travelled down their local ‘highway of irony, built for their comfort by chopping down 100,000 rainforest trees, they should at least have been comforted by the news that the remaining mature Amazon trees are gorging on CO2 gas, and will thus continue to flourish for that reason. But, here is more on the role and importance of CO2.

THE LACK OF CONSENSUS ABOUT ABOLISHING FOSSIL FUELS AT COP30

This then brings us to a notable outcome from COP30 – particularly in how the conference ended. In essence, a last-minute agreement at the conclusion of COP30 was struck which ended up satisfying nobody, following threatened walkouts and tantrums.

And how it started is that a minority of countries, led by the UK and the EU, wanted the agreement at the conclusion of COP30 to include a legally binding roadmap on how and when the world would transition away from fossil fuels – which is concerningly something that leaders of nations had committed to (in principle) at COP28. Such a roadmap would essentially put meat on the bones of what had been no more than a vague promise to do something at some stage in the future.

However, a majority of countries opposed the UK’s plan, which had been strenuously argued by Ed Miliband. Although fingers were pointed at the Arab oil states, it was China and India, supported by many Asian and African nations, whose economies depend on fossil fuels and who need them to improve the lot of their people, that challenged the idea (which is quite incredibly, seeing as climate policies are often dictated to African and Asian countries).

In contrast, the UK and EU, along with a small handful of Latin American countries and Pacific Islands, even sent a letter to the COP President threatening to block any agreement that did not include a firm commitment to phase out fossil fuels. But it was all to no avail, as the COP Presidency simply ignored their demands and offered them a ‘take it or leave it’ choice instead. To which the UK and EU had to back down. Consequently, the final deal made at COP30 made NO MENTION of a roadmap and even failed to include stronger language about phasing out fossil fuels. The only mention was a passing “acknowledgement” of the transition already agreed at COP28. Indeed, the pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is at a decline.

And in addition, I believe one of the key takeaways of COP30, especially in light of the failure to create consensus on abolishing fossil fuels, is that there has been the eclipse of Europe as a force in world politics. No longer does the rest of the world put a premium on the declarations of European climate alarmists. Because, after all, why should any developing nation be denied cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy because of the declarations of European nations? In truth, COP30 was the conference when pious platitudes met reality. And reality won. As such, while some Western countries are still determined to pursue Net Zero regardless of the cost and damage entailed, the rest of the world long ago worked out that fossil fuels are an essential, not a luxury.

THE WAR ON FOSSIL FUELS

While they ultimately failed, the attempt at pushing for a legally binding commitment to phase out foil fuels represents a war on fossil fuels, which is quite important to be aware of and push against. And to detail this further, we ought first to quickly establish why fossil fuels are not a problem. So, you no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before. When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars. They also think that “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet. In any case, none of these notions are true, but many people believe them; and – no doubt – the use of propaganda terms plays a large role.

In fact, George Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts. Additionally, it is crucial to note that the problematisation of fossil fuel has an extensive history – as there has been a prolonged war on the fossil fuel industry. For instance, kindly have a listen to this promotional video from Greenpeace on what they say are the dangers of fossil fuel advertising; and subsequently a discussion with Bill McKibben, on what he called the Radicalness of the Fossil Fuel Industry.

UNDERSTANDING HYDROCARBONS IS ESSENTIAL FOR APPRECIATING FOSSIL FUELS

Now, considering the presence of such propaganda against fossil fuels, I would kindly suggest understanding “fossil fuels” as being somewhat synonymous to hydrocarbons, which is a much better and more precise word.

In essence, a hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes. Therefore, they are not an inherent evil; they are a necessary and functional resource. In fact, oil and gas account for two-thirds of all energy consumed on earth. Add in coal, and the total soars to well over 90%.

Even as oil and gas are consumed, reserve estimates are not decreasing, but increasing, thanks to significant advances in drilling and production technology, especially deepwater drilling, multistage hydraulic fracturing, and horizontal drilling. Consumers’ natural gas prices are down significantly, as a result. Similarly, production from US shale oil has saved consumers as much as $248 billion on gasoline and other refined projects. And it’s a good thing, because global hydrocarbon consumption is expected to grow significantly in the coming decades, particularly in the developing world. And so, this is why we ought to be cautious of messaging that tries to vilify what is clearly a reliable energy source. However, the war on fossil fuels is also driven by diabolical approaches that have a Malthusian view on human life, as the President of Loveworld Incorporated warned a long time ago. 

IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT HYDROCARBONS ARE RELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Now, it is also important to note that hydrocarbon fuels still make up about 86% of the world’s energy supply, which is roughly the same as it was in 1997. 22 Years later, and these fuels are still the primary source of energy, despite the growing use and development of renewables. When we ask why this is so, we discover that it is because these fuels are good at what they do! Most industries still rely on these fuels to provide power, heat and energy because they are efficient, effective, and readily available.

For instance, a major user of hydrocarbon fuels is the transportation industry. This includes everything from the taxis, e-hailing rides, buses, ferries that transport people over short distances of water, and even private vehicles. And while advances are being made in this sector to introduce modes of transport that rely less of hydrocarbons – with for example, the Ugandan-based company Kiira Motors introducing a solar-powered electric bus, the first of its kind in East Africa, …while these inventions are making great strides, they are far from being a model for what transportation ought to look like, because of challenges like high costs, limited availability, and issues with charging the vehicles which make them less reliable options for many.

Similarly, the mining industry doesn’t just obtain the hydrocarbon fuels we use every day – it uses them itself! Mining operations require enormous amounts of power, relying on energy from the grid, where possible, and generators in order to get the job done. Diesel and HFO are often the fuels of choice here, due to their lower costs and the added benefit of lower machine maintenance costs, and for the fact that these fuels are readily available.

Additionally, marine transport (or shipping) remains the best and most efficient way to transport goods around the world – 90% of Africa’s imports and exports happen via sea! But those enormous, mobile, island-size vehicles need the power to do it, and hydrocarbon fuels are its primary source of fuel and energy. These tremendous machines use a variety of fuels, including diesel, bunker fuel (HFO) and liquified natural gas (LNG). Renewable energy has infiltrated the shipping industry as well, offering the use of solar energy. At this point in time, solar energy can’t do much more than power basic electrical facilities on ships, leaving hydrocarbon fuels to do the heavy lifting.

And (of course), as we know, hydrocarbons are essential for the availability of electricity. With electricity, almost all things were made possible with ease: we have heated water, we can store our food safely in refrigerators, we can control the immediate climate in our environments through air conditioning, we can work on our computers, laptops, and phones, and we have something to power machinery, doing the jobs humans can’t. And all of this was initially made possible with hydrocarbon fuels! To provide us with the power we have at arms’ reach every day, hydrocarbon fuels and materials like coal are burned in power stations, transforming that heat and stored energy into kinetic energy, which turns huge turbines and generates electricity. Hydrocarbon fuels are even used to make renewable energy sources like solar panels – silica rock must be melted to create the silicon needed for solar panels, which can only be done with coal-fired or HFO-fired power plants!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso