UN Brass Upset at Backlash to Climate Agenda, Blames it on a Disinformation Campaign

by Olivia Murray | American Thinker

Supremely out of touch, or bloated with shameless dishonesty?  It’s hard to know, but in all likelihood, probably both.

The progressive globalist bureaucrats at the United Nations—yes the same ones who relentlessly tread on people’s inalienable rights and only serve as a detriment to all of mankind with the exception of themselves—are now informing us that the cost of their progressive climate agenda isn’t actually excessive, and any claims to the contrary are but a propaganda sound bite from the oil companies. Here’s the story, from Fiona Harvey’s new article published at The Guardian yesterday:

Fossil fuel companies are running ‘a massive mis- and disinformation campaign’ so that countries will slow down the adoption of renewable energy and the speed with which they ‘transition away’ from a carbon-intensive economy, the UN has said.

Selwin Hart, the assistant secretary general of the UN, said that talk of a global ‘backlash’ against climate action was being stoked by the fossil fuel industry…

‘There is this prevailing narrative – and a lot of it is being pushed by the fossil fuel industry and their enablers – that climate action is too difficult, it’s too expensive,’ he said.

Now, I don’t use the term “fossil fuel” because that’s not what oil is; oil is itself a renewable resource, as it continuously seeps from the Earth, but nonetheless, is the “backlash” against the progressive climate agenda really just a mendacious marketing campaign at the behest of Big Oil? Seriously?

This isn’t to say that Big Oil tycoons are incredibly moral and honest business executives (hardly), but that’s not the crux of the argument; Hart is claiming that the “backlash” to “climate action” is because of mis- and disinformation.

So, let’s take a look at the “climate action” agenda of the progressive globalists, like bona fide socialist Guterres and special adviser Hart, and the subsequent “backlash” from people around the world.

Can electric vehicles be remotely controlled or not? Indeed they can.

Do electric vehicles, by virtue of their design, require dependence on an electrical grid? Duh!

Are social credit scores, including the environmental metric of a person’s “carbon footprint,” ever used to control movement and deny access to personal finances? Yes, absolutely; this program is up and running in China at this very moment:

The consequences of a poor social credit score could be serious. It may affect travel prospects, employment, access to finance, and the ability to enter into contracts. On the other hand, a positive credit score could make a range of business transactions much easier.

Is it conceivable that the idea of a “carbon footprint” would be used to justify a host of atrocities? Again, absolutely. Population control, of which the U.N. is a big proponent, is all about “conserving” resources and limiting human impact; the U.N. intensely pushes abortion, and if you know anything about history you now that when you open the door and allow the murder of some, the state will inevitably comes for you. (The One-Child Policy of China was touted as delivering for the “green” agenda.)

Can enough copper even be mined to facilitate the proposed total transition? Not even close.

Are wind turbines absolutely destroying our wildlife and biodiversity, killing birds, bats, and all kinds of marine life? Check, check, and check.

Since there’s no recycling program in place, where are the decommissioned wind turbines going? That’s right, they’re piling them up in modest towns across the American heartland.

What about solar panels? Do they have a disposal plan for those? No they don’t, and this too is fixing to be a serious issue down the road, with even far-left outlet Mother Jones asking this: “What Will We Do With the Megatons of Toxic Trash?” As of now, they’re winding up in landfills where all the heavy metals and chemical plastics are breaking down and leaching into our soil and water tables.

Do “greenie” policies do more harm than good? Literally always. Remember the dam removal project in California that drove the salmon to the verge of extinction?

Is the cost of “net zero” in the trillions or not? Try tens (maybe hundreds) of trillions. These are like Dr. Evil numbers here. Here’s this, from McKinsey Global Institute, which is itself a very progressive-minded firm:

The transformation of the global economy needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 would be universal and significant, requiring $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets, $3.5 trillion more than today. To put it in comparable terms, that increase is equivalent to half of global corporate profits and one-quarter of total tax revenue in 2020.

(That’s a lot of money, and I don’t know about you, but I’m taxed out—the “too expensive” criticism is entirely legitimate.)

Now, are any of those points I listed above from the oil lobby? No, it’s all just data and fact—a currency entirely avoided by the progressive climate zealous left.