- Extremely American
Why the 'UN Climate Summit' was actually the 'China Empowerment Summit'
Why the UN Climate Summit was actually the China Empowerment Summit
‘The West will be more reliant on China as we go forward with this UN Green New Deal agenda.’
By: Evita Duffy
November 29, 2022: The following is part of an interview with ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano and Federalist Staff Writer Evita Duffy, in which they discuss the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Great Reset, Covid, and the future of the West. It has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Evita Duffy (ED): Hi everyone, this is Evita Duffy, staff writer at The Federalist, and I am joined today by Marc Morano, the founder of ClimateDepot.com and author of “The Green Fraud” and “The Great Reset: Global Elites in the Permanent Lockdown.”
Marc Morano (MM): Thank you, Evita, happy to be here.
ED: So you were in Egypt this last week for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP27. Can you just explain to us, what are climate reparations? How much is it going to cost us? What did you learn while you were there?
MM: Well, it’s called “COP” because it’s “Conference of Parties,” which is a UN bureaucratic name. It really began when George H.W. Bush went to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and signed the “Rio Earth Treaty,” which literally led to the creation of this UN climate process. So what’s happened over the years is they’re basically saying that the wealthy nations — Europe, United States, Canada, Australia — our use of fossil fuels (i.e., us driving around in SUVs) has created bad weather in Africa and therefore we need to give them reparations for all the bad weather we caused. That’s literally the sales pitch.
The problem with that is twofold. [First,] weather hasn’t gotten worse as CO2 has increased. Oddly, the weather has actually improved. And you can look at this — hurricanes, floods, wildfires, drought, tornadoes, on every climate time scale — 30, 50, 100 years — there’s either no trend in these bad weather extremes or there’s a declining trend. And how they get trends is … they can always cherry-pick a region or a timescale but if you look at it from a big climate picture, there is no climate emergency — no climate bad weather that we need reparations for.
The [second] thing interesting about this … is that these poor nations have actually immensely benefited from the wealthy nations’ use of fossil fuels. We brought schools, hospitals, medicine, infrastructure to these developing world countries and allowed them to develop even better. They’re enjoying a lot of the First World benefits from our wealth, and so the key is to allow the Third World or the developing world (Africa, Asia, South America, the 1 billion-plus people that have no access to running water, adequate access to running water and electricity) to develop like we did.
And the real problem is they don’t want them to develop. They don’t want them to make the same “mistakes” (i.e., long life expectancy, lower infant mortality, infrastructure, wealth creation). So instead, they want us to just pay them, pay their leaders to keep their people poor because then they’ll be good stewards of the environment. In a nutshell, that really is what the UN climate reparations fund is all about.
ED: Yeah, like you say it’s “keep the poor poor,” and there’s been a lot of studies that have come out that say poor people and poverty are actually worse for the environment. When people are in desperation, they put a strain on natural resources far more than people who are in developed societies. So it’s actually probably having the opposite effect that [the UN delegates] want. Is that correct?
MM: Yes, you’re directly on point. What’s happened is — and there have been studies on this and we’ve observed this over the last 100 years — wealthier nations have cleaner environments and put less strain on the resources. Now, you can look at places in the developing world, whether it’s India or Brazil or South America or African nations. They’re living in huts made of animal dung. They’re burning dung and wood inside with horrible air quality. They don’t have modern sanitation. The rivers are polluted. They don’t have means of modern fossil fuel energy. So what do they do? They clear-cut forests, they burn trees, they in some cases hunt species that lose habitat. They don’t have high-yield agriculture that comes with wealth and wealth creation and technological advancement. So they don’t get enough food, or they need more land to feed people instead of increasing the food yield on the existing land for farmland.
So it turns out if you look back at like Eastern European nations, they had some of the filthiest environments and they were the ones that were the poorest centrally planned socialist nations of the 20th century. In fact, if you look at like the United States, the World Health Organization lists the United States air quality as among the cleanest in the world. And since the first Earth Day, we’ve radically improved our air and water quality while at the same time seeing massive economic growth and massive population increases.
It can be done. And the way not to do it is the way the United Nations in this climate summit in Egypt tries to approach it through central planning, through regulatory bodies, and through literally trying to micromanage every aspect of human life and development, instead of allowing wealth prosperity through a free market system. They’re dead set against that.
ED: So let’s go back to what happened at COP27 just for a moment because I read that China is exempt from paying any of these climate reparations, but China has the world’s second-biggest economy and they’re the world’s biggest polluters. So how did that happen?
MM: Well, it happens because China is still listed as a “developing nation.” You know, these are all called racist colonial terms. You can’t say “Third World.” If you say “First World nation,” like Europe or the United States, that’s considered racist. So I guess China’s an “emerging economy,” is how they define it. So the United States could be on the hook for a billion dollars per year, possibly in climate reparations, and then China would have to pay absolutely zero, not a cent, because they’re considered a developing nation/emerging economy. … They were also in many ways exempt from the UN Paris Agreement for the same reasons.
And so what’s happened here is all of these nations end up coming here and they’re begging for money. And this doesn’t necessarily help the people at all. This helps the leaders of the countries begging for this money because it ensures they get money, they can then buy their reelection, they can build monuments to themselves, they can pay off all the people that they need to, they can solidify their power.
But I wouldn’t even be surprised in the UN process if China ended up being on the receiving end of these climate reparations. Keep in mind, China doesn’t only benefit from not having to pay so-called climate reparations. But they benefit from the entire UN Green New Deal [and] net-zero agenda because the world is going to be looking to China. The U.S. buys over 80 percent of our solar panels currently from China. We rely on China for all the rare earth mining for lithium and cobalt. China is expanding mining operations in Africa — places like the Congo with allegations of underage labor of children of 8, 9 years old by international human rights groups.
So this whole UN climate summit we saw in Egypt was actually the China empowerment summit because China is going to benefit from everything that comes out of this. The West will get poorer. The West will see more regulations. The West will be more reliant on China as we go forward with this UN Green New Deal agenda.
ED: That’s getting at the real question here because when all these delegates showed up in Egypt, there were, I guess, 400 jets that landed, and so [the delegates] can’t care about the environment that much if they’re taking private jets to the conference. So what’s in it for them? I mean, why would they want to make Western nations poorer and these other Third World countries richer? Why redistribute the wealth? What is the purpose? What’s in it for [the Westerners who are allowing this to happen]?
MM: That’s a great question. You figure, why are they doing this? Well, the answer is simple. On one hand, you have the ideologues, and these could be the people like Harrison Ford and Leonardo DiCaprio, who literally think that the earth is facing a climate emergency and unless the UN saves us somehow from this climate catastrophe by passing some agreement that we’re all doomed. And you have young activists who actually believe that.
Now, Greta Thunberg left [the UN climate summit]. She’s not a climate skeptic. She believes in the climate emergency but she’s so concerned about climate that she now recognizes that if you care about climate, the UN is actually a scam full of lying and greenwashing. And this is why Greta Thunberg for the first time since she came on the public seat was not in attendance at this conference.
So what ends up happening is you have world leaders who get to virtue signal, who get to have all these ideologues in green energy and corporate backers — in many cases, Democrat Party donors — push this whole green agenda on it because there’s a lot of money and campaign contributions to be made. And they don’t think they’re necessarily destroying America. They think, and they’ve been led to believe, that solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, and they’re just about to take over and this is going to be a revolution and they’re going to lead it. Some of the politicians actually believe it. The others maybe are more cynical and this is just what their donors are pushing. This is what the UN is pushing. This is what the media is pushing. It becomes a sort of groupthink virtue signal. And it’s incredible.
I interviewed as a member of the Ukrainian delegation at this conference, and they actually told me with a straight face that [what] Vladimir Putin fears [the most] is European nations doubling down on green energy. I can tell you right now, the Middle East, Venezuela, China, and Vladimir Putin’s Russia would laugh hysterically at European nations doubling down on green energy because this is the mess that they’re in.
Because of the green energy agenda, [European nations] ended up being reliant. In the case of Germany, 50 percent of their energy was coming from Russia. And now we’re seeing the new prime minister of England basically saying they’re not going to open up their fracking, they’re still continuing this. It’s a powerful ideology, where they think if they go against it, they’ll lose elections, they’ll lose donors, they’ll get media disapproval, and they’ll get their children angry at them because they’re not saving the Earth. So that’s how you get people to go against their own interests.
The flip side of that is how do you get African nations and poor nations where a billion people don’t have adequate running water and electricity — how do you get them to sign on to these UN deals? You pay them off. You come up with a climate slush fund, the climate reparations fund. So the one thing you have to understand is the UN is very competent at one thing, Evita, and that is A) throwing a party and B) knowing how to play politics, knowing how to transfer money, knowing how to put the right interests in the right place to make things happen.
So they bring Africa and poor nations in South America to the table by offering huge sums of cash. They bring the Western leaders to the table by offering massive disapproval and, as John Kerry said, “global shaming” if you don’t support this. Look what happened when Donald Trump pulled us out of the UN Paris Agreement. All hell broke loose. World leaders, the media, academia, the United Nations, [and] youth activists condemned him. Donald Trump was seen as Satan himself for not supporting the UN Paris climate accords and withdrawing from them. So you ask what they get out of it? They get out of avoiding being labeled like Donald Trump was.
Video immediately below:
Related Video (Interview): Marc Morano, The Democrats go by Klaus Schwab's Playbook
Source: The Federalist