Greens ‘Contemplate’ Mandatory Carbon Limits
Aug. 2, 2021 (EIRNS)—One of the unspoken (genocidal) aspects of the Great Reset scheme is that— since it’s against natural law for a society to commit mass genocide on its own— it won’t work under “democratic” conditions. Yet this fact is known to the insiders, then the question becomes: “How do we get them to do it?”
An article for Inside Climate News, July 28 gets at this question, as author Nicholas Kusnetz laments the current ineffective compliance with the Paris Agreement, in “Why the Paris Climate Agreement Might Be Doomed To Fail.” As he spells it out, the problem is that Paris goals are all voluntary, in contrast to the “effective” job done by the Montreal Protocol of 1987 to eradicate CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons, blamed for the formation of the ozone hole), and save the planet. Kusnetz points to the work of Scott Barrett, vice dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, who—along with “behavioral and environmental economist” Astrid Dannenberg, at the University of Kassel, Germany—designed a Monopoly-type “game” (where countries could “volunteer” cuts) and showed that voluntary compliance would not work—ever. As Kusnetz states in his very first sentence, Barrett and Dannenberg published their findings “not long before the Paris Agreement was signed,” meaning that the perpetrators knew from Day One that the “voluntary” business was just show.
In contrast to the “voluntary” Paris Agreement, Kusnetz says, “The [Montreal] agreement set hard limits on the production and consumption of CFCs, that ratcheted down over time. It also prohibited trade in the chemicals or in products that used them between countries that had signed the agreement and those that hadn’t.” In terms that only a “behavioral economist” could truly appreciate, Kusnetz writes, “As more countries joined the pact, the global refrigerant market shrank for those that hadn’t signed, creating a tipping point that all but forced countries to join up once a critical mass was reached.”
Barret and Dannenberg’s 2015 work highlighted the case of India, which initially did not join the Montreal Protocol, but was essentially forced to in 1992, because Montreal had destroyed the entire market for CFCs. In contrast, under the Paris Agreement, India continues to use coal with abandon: “India wanted to develop its economy and reduce poverty. Burning more coal was the simplest way to do that, and the accord gave no compelling incentives to look at alternatives.”
Barrett’s point, Kusnetz says, is that “diplomats would also have needed a stick to punish India if it didn’t agree, as they did with the trade barrier in the Montreal Protocol.” In the words of Barrett, “that’s been the whole problem from the beginning. We’ve had 30 years of negotiations, more diplomatic effort on this than any other in all of world history, and all this time global emissions have been rising.”
In reality, this “voluntary” shortcoming of the Paris Agreement is being dealt with by the “market manipulation” stick, as market-movers such as Mark Carney attempt to coax trillions of dollars from compliant private “capitalists” into the scheme, with intent to freeze out any and all non-compliers.