Climate change and the New World order

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, as the war in Ukraine sees Europe scrambling to find adequate supplies of natural gas - a fossil fuel - for the coming winter. Oblivious to the realities, the United Nations is poised to hold yet another of its global palavers on 'climate change'. From Nov. 6 - 18, 2,000 speakers and 35,000 participants will pour into the tourist paradise of Sharm-el Sheikh in Egypt for what's formally known as COP 27 - the 27th annual meeting of the UN's Conference of the Parties, ostensibly to fight for the survival of our planet. Tens of thousands of delegates - world leaders, ministers, envoys, appointed bureaucrats, climate activists, NGO observers and journalists - will descend on the city, their chests bedecked in lanyards and colour-coded badges in a circus-like atmosphere. Lately, every United Nations climate summit seems to spew a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, generated by delegates travelling there, their spending on two weeks of hotel accommodation (steep for grassroots organisations), and the public relations bonanza enjoyed by the host government, which invariably positions itself as an eco-friendly champion. By all accounts, the Egyptian government is frantically building a bubble in Sharm el-Sheikh, donning the guise of a newly defined democracy, marketing itself aggressively ahead of the summit. A promotional video on the Cop27 official website welcomes delegates to the "green city" of Sharm el-Sheik and shows young actors - including men with scruffy beards and necklaces clearly meant to look like environmental activists - enjoying non-plastic straws and biodegradable food containers as they take selfies on the beach, enjoy outdoor showers and drive electric vehicles to the desert to ride camels. Unlike every other climate summit in recent memory, this one will have no authentic local partners. There will be some Egyptians in attendance claiming to represent "civil society", but in a departure from the usual UN rules, almost all have been vetted and approved by a government that is anything but a flagship of democracy. That's just the beginning of a green gold rush for Egypt, however. Late last month, British International Investment (BII), which is backed by the UK government, giddily announced that it was "investing $100m to support local start-ups" in Egypt. It is also the majority owner in Globeleq, which has announced, just ahead of Cop27, an $11bn deal to build up green hydrogen production in Egypt. At the same time, BII stressed its "commitment to strengthen its partnership with Egypt and increase climate finance". Germany, one of Egypt's major donors and trading partners, also has major interests there. Given the difficulties caused by Germany's reliance on Russian gas, Egypt is eagerly positioning itself to provide replacement gas and hydrogen. Meanwhile, German giant Siemens Mobility has announced a "historic" multibillion-dollar contract to build electrified high-speed trains across Egypt. Glovingly looking forward to this summit, Canadian Federal Environment Minister, Steven Guilbeault, will lead the Canadian delegation on an issue that should be of no small concern to Canadian taxpayers, given that the Trudeau government has committed more than $100 billion to the cause to date. At this year's UN climate summit, developing countries will be making a major push for more financial reparations from developed nations like Canada, beyond the billions of dollars already committed, for the damage to their countries caused by climate change. Their argument is that the vast majority of emissions affecting climate change have historically come from developed nations. It doesn't seem to matter that Canada was never a colonial power exploiting developing countries; for the Trudeau government, squandering taxpayers' money is not a problem. In the real world, the UN's top-down ivory tower approach to addressing their definition of climate change is in shambles. They have more than a quarter century of failures going back to the first Cop1 conference in Berlin, Germany in 1995. By the way, global emissions have returned to record levels, after a brief decrease due to the economic slowdown caused by the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. This illustrates that only periods of global economic decline and recession have ever reduced emissions, and only temporarily. They have nothing to do with politically motivated climate change policies. So is this recently induced recession in the western world a new attempt to reduce emissions and take the opportunity to establish a New World order as heralded by the World Economic Forum (WEF)? A UN report released last week claims the world is heading for a catastrophic increase in average global temperatures of 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to pre-industrial levels, exceeding what the UN considers the safe level of 1.5C to 2C. So how is it that the glaciers in the Himalayas still exist, despite a UN report that they should have disappeared by now? Even if all current emission reduction commitments are achieved - the Trudeau government's targets are 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050 - "We are headed for a global catastrophe," UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declared in the wake of the report's release. The war between Russia and Ukraine has demonstrated how pointless emission targets set by the UN during these annual carbon dioxide-spewing treks to the world's vacation hotspots are. When Russia cut natural gas exports to Europe in retaliation for western sanctions imposed for its invasion of Ukraine, all green energy considerations were abandoned as a matter of expediency. Countries like Germany are firing up abandoned coal-powered energy plants to get through the winter with adequate supplies of electricity. Coal being the most carbon dioxide intensive fossil fuel when burned compared to natural gas, how will this reduce their emissions? The UN's approach to addressing climate change has become a textbook example of the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. These annual global gabfests with their giant carbon footprints, where global celebrities arrive on private jets, to show they care about the planet, send the worst possible message in addressing climate change - hypocrisy. Even Greta Thunberg, the darling of climate change advocacy, is skipping the 'greenwashing' Cop27 climate summit in Egypt. If last year's summit in Glasgow was about "blah, blah, blah", this one's meaning, even before it starts, is more ominous. This summit is about blood, blood, blood with the war raging in Europe. It's time to scrap this buffoonery. Someone please tell the UN about video conferencing. What are your thoughts?