If the Club of Rome published this in 1972 then what they were worried about was Global Cooling and the coming ice age. I was born in 1962 and I remember very well 'the great global cooling scare'.
หลายเดือนก่อน +10
This was very interesting. Thank you. I am from Latvia, and we as EU county have these policies and targets to reduce GHG. Reading their plans I realized how crazy it all is. "Force people buy EV with increasing taxes until internal combustion engines are not viable anymore" (polluter pays) They also want to eliminate livestock, farming and agriculture or at least significantly reduce it and make us eat soy beans. So if Co2 is pollution when they will start taxing us breathing? This is crazy. We as a country with ~2 million people could stop emission to 0 and it wouldn't affect climate at all. This is absurd. I read everywhere we need to do this and that to mitigate climate change, but nowhere I see by how many degrees global temperature will reduce if we stop/reduce emissions. "Trying to achieve a goal that cannot be achieved" !!! I so much agree with this. We need a well funded organization that fights back. Air belongs to everyone as much as to no one and should not be taxed. And they just waste tax payer money on all these projects and researches, subsidies and so on. #dontPayForAir
Soybeans as only source of protein is not healthy. Life as a vegan are also really dangerous. Especially for kids. Animal based protein are exactly what our bodies need. Fat is good for us, carbs not so much, some fatty plant based oils are not good for us. Besides everything else. It is crazy we fight a war against co2 when there is a real threat of a global disaster with Russia threatening the world with nuclear war. My country Sweden as well as yours should concentrate our resources building a strong defence and a strong economy. The line between right and wrong must be clear in a world of geopolitical aggression. This Climate alarmism is playing right in the dictators in hands.
@@SmallWonda People are taking samples and having them analysed. The results are staggering in terms of aluminium, barium and strontium, to name a few kem trayl components.
@@vincentsouchaud6717 This rips my heart out. I was watching something delightful, yesterday, featuring petroglyphs with a horse at a revered Native site in the Desert SW. It was in a Park. As the camera scrolled the rolling, desolate landscape, there, dead centre, in the middle of the valley, where the ancestors would have looked for bison or marauders, was a hideous threat of an altogether different kind - a sea of roiling wind turbines, stark white against the sagebrush and dusky green hills. And you know the threat those first riders across The Plains presented to those Native Peoples have truly come home to roost... I just hope people have redress - that we 'have a right' NOT to have our land poisoned and ruined by these "Green Energies & Mitigation' (ego-engineering). I try to think back to when such reckless greed ran amok, and I suppose it was around 150-200-yrs... But this is on such a HUGE scale...I just can't fathom how this can be 'right!'
i am so thankful for TH-cams context banners & knowing that they are never wrong and always right, thank god for that forced action...otherwise we would be lost.
If I had been so fortunate, when studying 'thermo' & 'quant' during the late `1960s and further, etc. ....... to have the UN Context Banners before me (then) I probably wouldnt have worked to study so much. I didnt know then that raw politics was the easiest pathway to 'mastery'.
@@shemite850 Me too - British sense of humour!! Blue used to be my 'fav' colour, now I just see RED!!!!!! We must keep resisting, things are about to get a whole lot WORSE.
Great presentation. I used to think Switzerland was a moderate and rational country. Looks like I was wrong. And now with Starmer (a morally bankrupt former lawyer) as British PM we are going to see a whole lot more judicial abuse of power. Better start learning Mandarin!
It is imperative to understand the benefit of net zero … For the UK for example; A … UK emissions per year = 400 million tons (gov.uk) B … CO2 required to increase global temperature by one degree C = 1 million million tons (IPCC) Divide A by B to get the reduction in global temperature if UK achieved Net Zero. Answer; 0.0004 degrees Centigrade per year. That’s four ten-thousandths of one degree C per year. California is also 0.0004 … Australia 0.0005 degrees C per year.
A really good talk. Increasingly the law is being used for political purposes. There needs to be a penalty for what are in effect bogus and unrealistic claims. My feeling is that if say the IPCC or similar organizations misinforms the public such that we incur financial loss and the consequent suffering for predictions that do not come true then we can claim compensation. What is needed is for legal rulings to be based on specific key performance indicators which, if not realized as predicted will trigger a counter claim. I would like to also see penalties against judges but being lawyers they will no doubt out maneuver themselves out of being held to account.
@@thegeneralist7527Indeed. We need to get back to that. Yesterday I saw an Elon Musk talk in which he said we need to clean out laws instead of gradually silting up the productive wealth enhancing processes. On this point I think he is right.
We are horribly close to losing the battle. These International laws have been proliferating since 1972 and we are 50 yrs behind these communists. Big countries like ours (USA) must withdraw and be more like China. It is incredible that we are saving old ladies from heat by impoverishing the bottom quartile of whole countries. Surely a Human rights violation?
Severin Vetter's presentation was extremely informative and relevant. The thing that makes me cringe is the reference to these policies as "green" policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to being unreliable sources of energy, wind and solar farms are extremely destructive to the environment. They require huge inputs of land, causing the destruction of forests and animal homes. They kill scores of birds, bats and - in the case of maritime farms - whales and dolphins. They contain deadly chemicals and cannot be recycled without extreme hazard to the environment. Electric cars are especially hazardous! Therefore, these laws make no sense and should be argued from that standpoint.
Green in reference to Net Zero may as well be caustic acid - what these lunatics are doing is nothing short of criminal so far as our environment, wildlife, animals, land, farms, food security, independence, mobility, infrastructure, etc., etc., - and palming off this travesty on poorer, developing nations for them to deal with the dirt or so-called carbon fallout as they manufacture our 'green solutions', surely makes these people the epitome of Evil? I'm so mad because they are finally getting round to trashing Tasmania...
Thanks all, great discussion. On the Swedish decision, the cost and impact of achieving climate goals could exceed the benefits in terms of Article 8, I would have thought.
How about the right to have food and adequate shelter? Both are threatened by the green agenda. It's not only our freedom that's at stake, it's plain and simple our live.
Very frightening but a very real danger. The world has gone mad and will go under by definition, literally by definition, if mad people get the power to define things to obtain the power of the law. Very scary indeed.
Agree - As JSO prance & shriek about the place with their orange paint, I'd like to scream Net Zero is Killing the World - C02 is NOT our enemy - without it we all die & then where will be the Globalist's then? With no people to fleece?
When it comes to fuel wars, or to allow laboratories to discharge synthetic dangerous substances in the environment, or to use people as guinea pigs, there are no regulations at al! l😅
Let's add more context: In 1971, most of the world's representatives got together in a super luxurious party in the desert of Iran to celebrate the 2500's of the rule of the Persian Empire. All monarchs were there. Apart from Yemen and Iraq, I think. .... .... ....
Presumably if there is an obligation on states to "take all necessary action" to protect the environment from man's emmissions; given that China is the biggest emmiter then these states are obligated to change the regime in China.
This podcast left me with a profound feeling that our lawmakers are working to bind us in to giving away our freedoms and prosperity, handing power and authority to the Chinese state. Useful idiots.
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between Natural Rights, those intrinsic to all human beings which require no positive action by anyone, only for others (including governments) to refrain from infringing them. It is possible for Natural Rights to be enjoyed by all insofar as all desist from infringing by the Natural Rights of others. Human Rights are an entirely different animal. These are most commonly political favours promised to people (by politicians who almost certainly will not bear the cost of them). They are typically Positive Rights, awarding certain parties specified rewards (e.g. the "right" to housing, or healthcare or clean water, etc.). All of these things require other people to expend resources (effectively have a portion of their property confiscated, property to which they have a Natural Right). Such Rights cannot be enjoyed by all as the resources to implement them simply does not exist sort of enslaving a vast segment of the population to work to fulfil the "Rights" of the chosen. Natural Rights are few and almost always implemented in the negative (i.e. porphyry the government from infringing upon them). Human Rights are nothing like this and are often just Socialist policies in a thin disguise.
Very many questions. How to set cost effective measures if you don't know the real cost/benefits of co2 increase and the capability of decreasing temperature with these measures? Why the target is the temperature of the beginning of the last century? Why is it not warm medieval temperature? World data shows that until today, the externalities of co2 were much more positive than negative to mankind.
Why doesn't some body bring a human rights case to have more Co2. The idea being to improve photosynthesis so we can feed the worlds growing population, i.e to avoid starvation, hunger and death caused by it?
Perhaps the tax payers of Switzerland should sue those old ladies for depriving them of their right to property (through the inevitable billions in taxes that will be spent to pretend to change the temperature). I'd be surprised if anyone dies from heat stroke in Switzerland. Maybe if someone drank a gallon of schnapps and fell asleep in the sun in the middle of summer... you'd have to try pretty hard.
The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to limit Growth. Apart from fossil fuel there is Biomass required to feed the growing population. Take Wheat biomass. For every tonne of wheat produced in a year, there are 3 tonnes of Wheat straw. This does not count the roots and stubble ploughed back into the ground. There are secondary sources of waste - packaging and transport and processing. All wheat biomass gets composted, burnt, or processed into food which is metabolized to CO2 over the next year or so. For every crop grown there are similar scenarios. Every couple of generations over the last century, the human population has doubled, now to 8 billion. For each population doubling, food and associated biomass production has to double, and over each lifetime, all the above food and energy represents waste that ends up as CO2. It's not just fossil fuel. It is human bodies and waste that annually release CO2. Is there a human right to uncontrolled growth?
Tom's wrapping up questions were a bit of a waste of space though. So much detail and legal exegesis from his guest and all Tom could ask him about were boiler-plate questions about the home stuation in Austria - not at all what the speaker came to talk about nor would we expect to have any special insight into beyond any other informed person. I wondered if the 8 dissenting countries brought their own legal counsel and analysis to counter what was being pressed upon them by the international courts. Also how come rapporteurs,, who after all are just individuals, carry so much weight that they can tell the world how anbuguities in the law and treaties should be resolved. Are there no checks and balances?
More content like this is coming, but I'd advise you to not listen to the Q and A, because I can guarantee that you're never going to get questions like yours (or words like exegesis or rapporteurs), from me.
Thanks for responding Tom but I really felt awkward for your speaker who provided all that in depth analysis tracing the way lawfare was rearing its ugly head in our area that your Q and A made it sound like you'd slept through it all. "Exegesis" was the word chosen by me in admiration for that analysis; "rapporteurs" were mentioned by Severin (not me) several times as agents who had somehow been landed with the job of interpreting the law for special cases. I look forward to more content and hope that those final moments are to the point of what precedes: I might even have something for you on global warming and if it's for real..
The legal gymnastic discourse and wrangling reminds me of the nonsensical ramblings in history to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. It’s a similar pointless exercise that anyone with limitless funds could initiate to force governments to ensure adequate levels of CO2 exist to promote a level of productivity in plant life to ensure adequate food is available for a growing population. Given that nothing decided in a developed nation can influence actions taken in a developing nation the argument is quite pointless especially as developing nations are transferring their co2 inducing processes to developing nations to beat the system. The world has gone mad politicians wake up for gods sake!!!!
I want more C02 ! Where is my human right ?
Being stolen by the human left.
😁👍
As usual, Tom, outstanding content. This is the kind of "citizen journalism" the world needs. Thank you!
Listening this while in Vienna, Austria. I am on vacation. What a nice surprise. Thank you Tom. Thank you Severin.
If the Club of Rome published this in 1972 then what they were worried about was Global Cooling and the coming ice age. I was born in 1962 and I remember very well 'the great global cooling scare'.
This was very interesting. Thank you.
I am from Latvia, and we as EU county have these policies and targets to reduce GHG. Reading their plans I realized how crazy it all is. "Force people buy EV with increasing taxes until internal combustion engines are not viable anymore" (polluter pays) They also want to eliminate livestock, farming and agriculture or at least significantly reduce it and make us eat soy beans. So if Co2 is pollution when they will start taxing us breathing? This is crazy. We as a country with ~2 million people could stop emission to 0 and it wouldn't affect climate at all. This is absurd. I read everywhere we need to do this and that to mitigate climate change, but nowhere I see by how many degrees global temperature will reduce if we stop/reduce emissions. "Trying to achieve a goal that cannot be achieved" !!! I so much agree with this. We need a well funded organization that fights back. Air belongs to everyone as much as to no one and should not be taxed. And they just waste tax payer money on all these projects and researches, subsidies and so on. #dontPayForAir
Soybeans as only source of protein is not healthy. Life as a vegan are also really dangerous. Especially for kids. Animal based protein are exactly what our bodies need. Fat is good for us, carbs not so much, some fatty plant based oils are not good for us. Besides everything else. It is crazy we fight a war against co2 when there is a real threat of a global disaster with Russia threatening the world with nuclear war. My country Sweden as well as yours should concentrate our resources building a strong defence and a strong economy. The line between right and wrong must be clear in a world of geopolitical aggression. This Climate alarmism is playing right in the dictators in hands.
I'm thinking that geoengineering by spraying chemicals in the atmosphere to reflect the sun is a violation of human rights.
I'm being denied my red light wavelengths and vitamin d!
(Also all the plants will die. But maybe that's the objective.)
I think citizen scientists should be taking air & soil samples...
@@SmallWonda People are taking samples and having them analysed. The results are staggering in terms of aluminium, barium and strontium, to name a few kem trayl components.
@@vincentsouchaud6717 This rips my heart out. I was watching something delightful, yesterday, featuring petroglyphs with a horse at a revered Native site in the Desert SW. It was in a Park. As the camera scrolled the rolling, desolate landscape, there, dead centre, in the middle of the valley, where the ancestors would have looked for bison or marauders, was a hideous threat of an altogether different kind - a sea of roiling wind turbines, stark white against the sagebrush and dusky green hills. And you know the threat those first riders across The Plains presented to those Native Peoples have truly come home to roost...
I just hope people have redress - that we 'have a right' NOT to have our land poisoned and ruined by these "Green Energies & Mitigation' (ego-engineering). I try to think back to when such reckless greed ran amok, and I suppose it was around 150-200-yrs... But this is on such a HUGE scale...I just can't fathom how this can be 'right!'
i am so thankful for TH-cams context banners & knowing that they are never wrong and always right, thank god for that forced action...otherwise we would be lost.
If I had been so fortunate, when studying 'thermo' & 'quant' during the late `1960s and further, etc. ....... to have the UN Context Banners before me (then) I probably wouldnt have worked to study so much. I didnt know then that raw politics was the easiest pathway to 'mastery'.
I'm completely confused... !!!
@@SmallWonda
i was being facetious
being constantly shadow banned for questioning authority
@@shemite850 Me too - British sense of humour!! Blue used to be my 'fav' colour, now I just see RED!!!!!! We must keep resisting, things are about to get a whole lot WORSE.
Great presentation.
I used to think Switzerland was a moderate and rational country.
Looks like I was wrong.
And now with Starmer (a morally bankrupt former lawyer) as British PM we are going to see a whole lot more judicial abuse of power.
Better start learning Mandarin!
Switzerland has been the repository for the earths blood money since the dawn of banking. Don't be fooled by the chocolates and clocks.
It is imperative to understand the benefit of net zero … For the UK for example;
A … UK emissions per year = 400 million tons (gov.uk)
B … CO2 required to increase global temperature by one degree C = 1 million million tons (IPCC)
Divide A by B to get the reduction in global temperature if UK achieved Net Zero.
Answer; 0.0004 degrees Centigrade per year.
That’s four ten-thousandths of one degree C per year.
California is also 0.0004 … Australia 0.0005 degrees C per year.
@Hickalum, CO2 does not cause temperature changes. It's temperature that causes CO2 changes.
CO2 follows temperature not vice versa.
CO2 does not affect the weather the laws of thermo dynamics, Stefan Boltzmann law prove the limits. of outgoing long wave radiation.
A really good talk. Increasingly the law is being used for political purposes.
There needs to be a penalty for what are in effect bogus and unrealistic claims. My feeling is that if say the IPCC or similar organizations misinforms the public such that we incur financial loss and the consequent suffering for predictions that do not come true then we can claim compensation. What is needed is for legal rulings to be based on specific key performance indicators which, if not realized as predicted will trigger a counter claim. I would like to also see penalties against judges but being lawyers they will no doubt out maneuver themselves out of being held to account.
The law is intended to preserve freedom and prosperity, not destroy it.
@@thegeneralist7527Indeed. We need to get back to that. Yesterday I saw an Elon Musk talk in which he said we need to clean out laws instead of gradually silting up the productive wealth enhancing processes. On this point I think he is right.
Law has always been politics, it's the politics that matter.
We are horribly close to losing the battle. These International laws have been proliferating since 1972 and we are 50 yrs behind these communists. Big countries like ours (USA) must withdraw and be more like China. It is incredible that we are saving old ladies from heat by impoverishing the bottom quartile of whole countries. Surely a Human rights violation?
Wonderful podcast, great work and highlights the scary plans and politics
Excellent! 👍👍👍
Severin Vetter's presentation was extremely informative and relevant. The thing that makes me cringe is the reference to these policies as "green" policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to being unreliable sources of energy, wind and solar farms are extremely destructive to the environment. They require huge inputs of land, causing the destruction of forests and animal homes. They kill scores of birds, bats and - in the case of maritime farms - whales and dolphins. They contain deadly chemicals and cannot be recycled without extreme hazard to the environment. Electric cars are especially hazardous! Therefore, these laws make no sense and should be argued from that standpoint.
Green in reference to Net Zero may as well be caustic acid - what these lunatics are doing is nothing short of criminal so far as our environment, wildlife, animals, land, farms, food security, independence, mobility, infrastructure, etc., etc., - and palming off this travesty on poorer, developing nations for them to deal with the dirt or so-called carbon fallout as they manufacture our 'green solutions', surely makes these people the epitome of Evil? I'm so mad because they are finally getting round to trashing Tasmania...
Since many more people die from cold versus heat these old ladies should want higher temperatures.
And the old lady I live with is perpetually grousing about the cold.
Do plants have an environmental right to more CO2 (plant food)?
@@just1john and we will then die off without the photosynthesis happening to create the 02 we need to stay alive !
We have earth's magnetic pole shift to be concerned with. And we are in the 6000 year cycle.
Pardon! I mistakenly deleted my first comment :)
How dare plants!!!
Thanks all, great discussion. On the Swedish decision, the cost and impact of achieving climate goals could exceed the benefits in terms of Article 8, I would have thought.
Thanks!
Great presentation, rational and thoughtful, as well as based in Law. Thank you.
Interesting and insightful presentation - great addition to the list of guests, Tom
How about the right to have food and adequate shelter? Both are threatened by the green agenda. It's not only our freedom that's at stake, it's plain and simple our live.
Very frightening but a very real danger. The world has gone mad and will go under by definition, literally by definition, if mad people get the power to define things to obtain the power of the law. Very scary indeed.
Agree - As JSO prance & shriek about the place with their orange paint, I'd like to scream Net Zero is Killing the World - C02 is NOT our enemy - without it we all die & then where will be the Globalist's then? With no people to fleece?
Brilliant podcast. Perhaps Severin has the best idea, challenge Climate Change policy through the Courts.
When it comes to fuel wars, or to allow laboratories to discharge synthetic dangerous substances in the environment, or to use people as guinea pigs, there are no regulations at al! l😅
You know we are screwed when Russia, China and Iran appear to be the sane ones
Let's add more context: In 1971, most of the world's representatives got together in a super luxurious party in the desert of Iran to celebrate the 2500's of the rule of the Persian Empire. All monarchs were there. Apart from Yemen and Iraq, I think. .... .... ....
Presumably if there is an obligation on states to "take all necessary action" to protect the environment from man's emmissions; given that China is the biggest emmiter then these states are obligated to change the regime in China.
I remember the limits of growth in 1972 in college. By 2000 20% of the earth's population will be killed by pollution. I hope the revised the book:(
This podcast left me with a profound feeling that our lawmakers are working to bind us in to giving away our freedoms and prosperity, handing power and authority to the Chinese state. Useful idiots.
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between Natural Rights, those intrinsic to all human beings which require no positive action by anyone, only for others (including governments) to refrain from infringing them. It is possible for Natural Rights to be enjoyed by all insofar as all desist from infringing by the Natural Rights of others.
Human Rights are an entirely different animal. These are most commonly political favours promised to people (by politicians who almost certainly will not bear the cost of them). They are typically Positive Rights, awarding certain parties specified rewards (e.g. the "right" to housing, or healthcare or clean water, etc.). All of these things require other people to expend resources (effectively have a portion of their property confiscated, property to which they have a Natural Right). Such Rights cannot be enjoyed by all as the resources to implement them simply does not exist sort of enslaving a vast segment of the population to work to fulfil the "Rights" of the chosen.
Natural Rights are few and almost always implemented in the negative (i.e. porphyry the government from infringing upon them). Human Rights are nothing like this and are often just Socialist policies in a thin disguise.
Very many questions. How to set cost effective measures if you don't know the real cost/benefits of co2 increase and the capability of decreasing temperature with these measures? Why the target is the temperature of the beginning of the last century? Why is it not warm medieval temperature? World data shows that until today, the externalities of co2 were much more positive than negative to mankind.
Why doesn't some body bring a human rights case to have more Co2. The idea being to improve photosynthesis so we can feed the worlds growing population, i.e to avoid starvation, hunger and death caused by it?
Perhaps the tax payers of Switzerland should sue those old ladies for depriving them of their right to property (through the inevitable billions in taxes that will be spent to pretend to change the temperature). I'd be surprised if anyone dies from heat stroke in Switzerland. Maybe if someone drank a gallon of schnapps and fell asleep in the sun in the middle of summer... you'd have to try pretty hard.
The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to limit Growth. Apart from fossil fuel there is Biomass required to feed the growing population.
Take Wheat biomass. For every tonne of wheat produced in a year, there are 3 tonnes of Wheat straw. This does not count the roots and stubble ploughed back into the ground.
There are secondary sources of waste - packaging and transport and processing.
All wheat biomass gets composted, burnt, or processed into food which is metabolized to CO2 over the next year or so.
For every crop grown there are similar scenarios.
Every couple of generations over the last century, the human population has doubled, now to 8 billion. For each population doubling, food and associated biomass production has to double, and over each lifetime, all the above food and energy represents waste that ends up as CO2.
It's not just fossil fuel.
It is human bodies and waste that annually release CO2.
Is there a human right to uncontrolled growth?
The Earth needs CO2 for the food 👍👍👍
Unproven. Based solely on computer models.
Tom's wrapping up questions were a bit of a waste of space though. So much detail and legal exegesis from his guest and all Tom could ask him about were boiler-plate questions about the home stuation in Austria - not at all what the speaker came to talk about nor would we expect to have any special insight into beyond any other informed person. I wondered if the 8 dissenting countries brought their own legal counsel and analysis to counter what was being pressed upon them by the international courts. Also how come rapporteurs,, who after all are just individuals, carry so much weight that they can tell the world how anbuguities in the law and treaties should be resolved. Are there no checks and balances?
More content like this is coming, but I'd advise you to not listen to the Q and A, because I can guarantee that you're never going to get questions like yours (or words like exegesis or rapporteurs), from me.
Thanks for responding Tom but I really felt awkward for your speaker who provided all that in depth analysis tracing the way lawfare was rearing its ugly head in our area that your Q and A made it sound like you'd slept through it all. "Exegesis" was the word chosen by me in admiration for that analysis; "rapporteurs" were mentioned by Severin (not me) several times as agents who had somehow been landed with the job of interpreting the law for special cases. I look forward to more content and hope that those final moments are to the point of what precedes: I might even have something for you on global warming and if it's for real..
I agree with him but wow that was boring 40 mins listening .
The legal gymnastic discourse and wrangling reminds me of the nonsensical ramblings in history to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. It’s a similar pointless exercise that anyone with limitless funds could initiate to force governments to ensure adequate levels of CO2 exist to promote a level of productivity in plant life to ensure adequate food is available for a growing population. Given that nothing decided in a developed nation can influence actions taken in a developing nation the argument is quite pointless especially as developing nations are transferring their co2 inducing processes to developing nations to beat the system. The world has gone mad politicians wake up for gods sake!!!!
UN and their 200+ list of resolutions, if you fart the UN would like to fine you for methane pollution 😂