The Real Agenda Behind The Paris Climate Accord – Besides The Actual Climate

0
173

by Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution:

  • The Facts:The efforts to ratify the Paris Climate Accord of 2015 and put a Carbon Tax/Carbon Credits scheme in place continue, amidst growing resistance.
  • Reflect On:If we were to clearly understand that the greatest beneficiaries of the Paris Climate Accords would be a small global elite, would we start to question this “solution” to Climate Change and even question the legitimacy of the Climate Change movement?

Greta Thunberg is quite upset. Yes, even more than she normally is. The reason? Because the wave of climate change school strikes over the past year has “achieved nothing” since greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, apparently by 4% since the Paris Climate Accord was signed four year ago. And here is why she thinks this has happened:

People want everything to continue like now and they are afraid of change. And change is what we young people are bringing and that is why they want to silence us and that is just a proof that we are having an impact that our voices are being heard that they try so desperately to silence us. (source)

The notion that the global political establishment is trying desperately to ‘silence’ Greta Thunberg and her young friends verges on the absurd. If anything, the global political establishment has done everything in its power to give voice to her ongoing strikes, marches, and protestations, and the global media has been fully accommodating by keeping her and her demands on the nations of the world in a bright spotlight.

While we have seen a physical maturation in Greta Thunberg before our eyes, her message has not grown accordingly and is getting stale. It’s not just the monotonous timbre of her outrage. Her unquestioning advocacy for the only establishment “solution” to climate change–mapped out by the controversial Paris Climate Accords of 2015–is starting to make people ask questions. As a girl growing in intelligence and discernment, would she not at any point challenge the ‘official’ solution handed to her on climate change, and wonder if some of the problems are actually contained therein? Would she not give at least a cursory glance to other solutions that have been proposed that might be more palatable to nation states?

How About Hemp?

Solutions like, for example, growing large amounts of hemp all over the planet. Hemp is a super-strong and fast-growing crop that pulls carbon out of our atmosphere like nothing else:

Hemp begins sequestering carbon the moment it is seeded; conservatively, hemp cultivation yields a sequestration ratio of about 1.5 units of sequestration per unit produced. In Layman’s terms, one ton of harvested hemp fiber should sequester 1.62 tons of CO2. Hemp can also sequester carbon back into the soil through a process called, biosequestration. In this process, hemp captures carbon emissions from the atmosphere. (source)

If we took this efficiency rate and calculated the cost of using a worldwide hemp-planting initiative to meet IPCC carbon-reduction guidelines, we would find not only that the cost to nation-states would be a fraction of what is being proposed by the Paris Climate Accord, but if this was done wisely and efficiently then countries would probably be able to actually profit from the enterprise by harvesting the hemp for its many uses.

Still skeptical? Longtime hemp activist Jack Herer is offering $100,000 to anyone who can disprove his hypothesis that hemp is a silver bullet for climate change. Here’s what he says at the end of his challenge, which was put up on his website in 2002:

No one has taken the $100,000 challenge to prove me wrong. Why? Because I am right. The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests have more to say than the people about the future of our planet?

So to be clear–I am not even broaching the subject as to whether or not Carbon emissions are causing global warming, or if the planet is even warming, both matters that are also deserved of serious investigation and analysis. All I am saying in this article is that an examination of the only solution to ‘Climate Change’ being proposed by the global establishment–and parroted by activists like Greta Thunberg–will help us discern whether or not the goal here is actually to improve conditions on the planet for humanity.

The Paris Climate Accord Explained

I have come across a video put together by health freedom advocate Dr. V. A. Shiva, who ran for the Senate in Massachusetts, in which he gives a clear and concise explanation of what would happen if the Paris Climate Accord was fully implemented today, and why it was a good thing that the U.S. pulled out of the accords. Here is a basic summary of his points:

  1. Today, one of the basic mechanisms of our economy is that manufacturers take raw materials and turn them into products, which we pay for as consumers.
  2. Those manufacturers are cumulatively emitting a certain amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of the manufacturing process.
  3. By 2030, the total amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere will have INCREASED based on the regulations of the accord (e.g. China will be allowed to double their carbon emissions without penalty).
  4. The only change is that manufacturers will have to pay money to the “IPCC” (a global elite “science” group that includes Al Gore, the Bushes, and others) in exchange for ‘carbon credits’ that this group somehow magically ‘owns’ and can therefore sell. 2030 will be the big payday for them as China will have to start buying credits.
  5. Naturally, these payments for carbon credits will ultimately be felt by consumers who will have to buy their consumer goods at a proportionately increased cost.
  6. In addition, the “IPCC” will allow these carbon credits to be bought and sold on a commodities market, which will actually enable the “IPCC,” current ‘owners’ of most of the carbon credits, to make TRILLIONS since the mechanisms in place will make the finite credits infinitely more valuable over time.
  7. As part of the agreement the U.S. had to agree to create a $100 Billion “Green Fund” which was actually being used to pay off (bribe) top “influencers” in each of the 190 signatory countries in order to get them to persuade their country’s leaders to sign on to the accord.

In effect, When the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Accord, the “Green Fund” payouts were withdrawn and a wrench was thrown into these plans. Many countries, especially developing nations, are now hesitant to become involved in a scam to enrich the global elite to the detriment of their own economy.

Vladamir Putin’s line to Greta Thunberg sums up the current hesitation by some signatories of the Paris Accord:

No one has explained to Greta that the modern world is complex and different and…people in Africa or in many Asian countries want to live at the same wealth level as in Sweden. Go and explain to developing countries why they should continue living in poverty and not be like Sweden.

Greta Thunberg is dead wrong in saying that the problem is that people, or countries, are ‘afraid of change.’ The majority of humanity is aching for change. But the most important change for us to make first is to take back our power, and recognize which so-called ‘movements’ are designed to once again enrich a small elite at the expense of humanity.

Read More @ Collective-Evolution.com

Loading...