Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster

“The policies will bring rage, protests, violence and anarchy – as France and Chile vividly demonstrated over the past two years.”
– Paul Driessen


“The theme at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos was “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World,” writes Paul Driessen. The “stakeholders” those leaders listen to never seem to represent blue collar workers or the world’s poorest citizens. The “solutions” they propose will lead to division and rebellion, not to cohesion. And the energy alternatives they offer to fossil fuels are anything but sustainable, renewable or eco-friendly.”


Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster

There is nothing ‘cohesive’ or ‘sustainable’ about ‘solutions’ demanded by WEF ‘stakeholders’

Paul Driessen

The World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland is billed as the globe’s most prestigious annual gathering of movers and shakers. Its mission is to “improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s theme was “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” Unfortunately, the lofty rhetoric belies the misleading, potentially disastrous realities of agendas supported by many participants.

A primary basis for this year’s theme is the repeated assertion that the world faces a climate cataclysm. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen thus wants to tax carbon-based energy imports into the EU and end humanity’s practice of “taking resources from the environment and generating waste and pollution in the process.” She (and others) insist that “green energy” would do no such thing.

Climate crisis claims in turn are based on computer models that are only as good as the assumptions built into them – and on attempts to blame temperature changes, extreme weather events and future crises on fossil fuel emissions, because the assumptions and models say it’s a cause-effect relationship.

The most cited model is (naturally) the most extreme: RCP8.5, which predicts temperatures way above what we are actually measuring and all manner of future calamities. But it is based on the assumptions that: methane and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (a tiny 0.0402% of Earth’s atmosphere) are vastly more important than the sun in driving climate change; our planet will have 12 billion people by 2100; there will be no energy innovations over the next 80 years; and therefore coal use will increase tenfold by the end of the century. On that we’re supposed to base restrictive energy policies, and Davos meeting themes.

Greta Thunberg and her patented tirade

Who are the stakeholders that Davos attendees will consult? Greta Thunberg was invited, to present her patented tirade that fossil fuels are destroying her future. But no climate realists (alarmism skeptics) were given the podium, nor were representatives of EU or US factory workers or the world’s poorest citizens.

The good news is that several bankers made assurances that they were not going to stop lending funds to fossil fuel companies or “major polluters.” (Will that latter category include the mining companies that will have to provide voluminous raw materials for a US and global “green new deal,” as discussed below?) The bad news is that Davos bankers and politicians allow themselves to be pressured constantly primarily by far-left “stakeholders,” who hold the stakes that they and global ruling elites want to drive through the hearts of developed nation living standards and poor country aspirations for better lives.

Indeed, contrary to its assurances at Davos, despite consultation with indigenous peoples supposedly being a core company business principle, and without consulting with Alaska Native stakeholders who want to drill carefully and ecologically for oil and gas on their own lands, to improve their people’s living standards, Goldman Sachs has decided it will no longer fund such development in the Arctic.

With “mainstream” outlets and social media increasingly controlling news and opinion, and siding with climate alarmists and anti-fossil activists, that pressure will continue to build – to our great detriment.

Depriving people of jobs, living standards, food, health and life

Will Davos themes, agendas and policies usher in a more “cohesive” world? The opposite is infinitely more likely. Deprive people of abundant, reliable, affordable fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy, as eco-activists seek to do – and you deprive them of jobs, living standards, food, health and life. People die in droves (itself a goal of more rabid environmentalists panicked about an over-populated world). Implement “green new deal” policies, and the results will be anything but cohesion. The policies will bring rage, protests, violence and anarchy – as France and Chile vividly demonstrated over the past two years.

Turn African, Asian and Latin American countries into vassal states, with enormous mines serving “ecologically responsible, climate-focused” nations that don’t tolerate mining within their own borders – and any cohesion will rapidly disappear. Tell American, European and other families they must accept massive wind and solar installations in their backyards or off their coasts, and the results will be similar.

A “sustainable” world? Yes, fossil fuels are ultimately finite resources – hundreds of years from now, after we run out of huge coal deposits, oil and gas from fracking, methane hydrates and other supplies, assuming policy makers don’t lock them up and “keep them in the ground.” But long before that happens, human innovation will create far better alternatives than wind turbines, if we let creativity flourish.

Meanwhile, just remember: Wind and sunshine are sustainable. But lands and raw materials required for the technologies to harness this intermittent, widely disbursed energy absolutely are not.

Sustainability is a useful concept for assessing hidden costs, risks and fiduciary responsibilities – such as those associated with climate change, as we are constantly reminded. But we must apply those same considerations to wind, solar, battery and biofuel operations; and to impacts on habitats and wildlife, air and water quality, human health and wellbeing in green new deal mining and manufacturing regions, and human welfare in an energy-deprived world of increasing hunger, death, anger, riots and chaos.

As my new Heartland Institute reports and previous articles note, fossil fuels and nuclear currently provide over 8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and electricity-equivalent power annually, to meet America’s industrial, commercial, residential and transportation needs. Using solar to generate all that power – and charge batteries for a week of sunless days – would require 19 billion state-of-the-art sun-tracking photovoltaic panels, completely blanketing an area equal to all of New York and Vermont.

But that assumes the panels are all located where the sun shines with summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365, which will never happen. So we’d probably have to double (perhaps even triple) the number of panels and affected acreage. The impacts on habitats and wildlife would be significant.

Using 1.8-MW wind turbines instead of solar panels would require more than 4 million turbines on farm, wildlife habitat and scenic lands equal to Arizona, Nevada, California, Oregon and part of Washington State combined. But the more we install, the more we have to put turbines in poor wind locations. We’d probably have to double (or even triple) the number of turbines, and acreage impacted. Their rapidly turning blades (200 mph at their tips) would slaughter millions of eagles, falcons, other birds and bats.

Going offshore instead would require hundreds of thousands of 650-foot-tall 10-MW turbines. Their impact on birds, bats, marine mammals, vistas, and ship and aircraft navigation would be intolerable.

Each 1.8-MW turbine requires some 1,200 tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, zinc, molybdenum, petroleum-based composites, reinforced concrete and other materials. Each ton of materials requires removing thousands of tons of rock and ore – and processing ores with fossil fuels. In fact, wind turbines need some 200 times more material per megawatt than a modern combined-cycle gas turbine!

Storing a week of electricity for windless and sunless periods would require some 2 billion half-ton Tesla car lithium-cobalt battery packs – and more materials; more mining. Connecting wind, solar and battery facilities to distant cities would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines, and more mining.

This doesn’t include materials to replace existing cars, trucks, heating systems and other technologies.

And that’s just for the United States. Imagine how many turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, raw materials, mines, processing plants and factories we’d need for a global transformation!

But green new deal advocates detest mining, at least by western mining companies in western countries. So it’s mostly done in faraway places that have virtually no environmental, health, safety, wage or child labor rules. Places like Inner Mongolia, where rare earth operations have fouled the air, created a huge toxic lake, and poisoned thousands of people. And Africa’s Congo, where 40,000 children labor in mines just for the cobalt needed in today’s cell phones, laptops and electric cars; not for any green new deal.

Eco-imperialism and false sustainability

This eco-imperialism and false sustainability must end. As to all those self-styled stakeholders, You first. Lead by example. Slash your energy use and living standards. Then you can (nicely) ask the rest of us to do likewise. That means you, Greta, Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, Emma Thompson and all the other climate scolds. (But of course they won’t. So why should we? And why should the world’s poor?)

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on environment, climate and human rights issues.


9 thoughts on “Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster”

  1. People love to preach they want to save the planet but really have no clue what they are talking about.

    Net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is stupid beyond belief !

    Not one country on Earth has made any significant progress in any endeavour – this is reality.

    I do not support the politics of envy but there is no way I support these sneering eco-parasites either.

    But to have any chance of reaching net zero by 2050 in the less than 11,000 days left the world needs to install staggering amounts of wind turbines and solar panels every day as well as shut down many fossil fueled energy sources every day.

    Replace numerous agricultural, mining and transport machines with electric machines and stop using the existing ones daily.

    It isn’t happening and it simply isn’t going to happen.

    We also need to remember the majority of the world’s population is unarmed and vulnerable to genocidal undemocratic governments.

    But no matter what happens net zero by 2050 or 2150 isn’t going to happen !

  2. The opposite of activism is complacency, which can be defined as sitting on one’s thumb.

    Climate alarmists are constantly in the forefront, zipping around the world to climate summits, controlling/manipulating social media, introducing legislation, etc. In other words, being active.

    Until those who oppose them get off their collective thumbs and meet activity with activity, things will keep going south.

  3. Given that our variable UV star controls our climate, its continuing change over the last 4 billion year, and will do for the next 4 billion years until Sol turns into a Red Giant and consumes all of the inner Rocky planets.
    The key passage in the piece states:
    Climate crisis claims in turn are based on computer models that are only as good as the assumptions built into them – and on attempts to blame temperature changes, extreme weather events and future crises on fossil fuel emissions, because the assumptions and models say it’s a cause-effect relationship.
    The most cited model is (naturally) the most extreme: RCP8.5, which predicts temperatures way above what we are actually measuring and all manner of future calamities. But it is based on the assumptions that: methane and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (a tiny 0.0402% of Earth’s atmosphere) are vastly more important than the sun in driving climate change
    Yet those climate change model are pre-determined to create the hockey stick climate models being used to enslave the human race in the next vision of a socialist world government by humans to vote for UN enslavement to “save” the planet.
    Fortunately our Sun has thrown a predicted, periodic solar wobbly, called a Grand Solar Minimum where the energy of the Sun reduced significantly over typical two cycle GSM, as it has done for every named “A” type deep GSM such as Oort, Wolf, the first pair of cycles of Spoorer and Maunder, Dalton, and this modern GSM.
    None of the biased climate models take into account the 16% variation UV output of the Sun, nor do they take into account the massive changes in atmospheric circulation of Heat and Water Vapour (the Earths primary GHG) between SC Cycle Max and Solar Minimum due to changes in the track of Jetstream from lateral to meridional.
    Every climate weather extreme of Heat, Wet, and Cold takes place on a decadal time scales of the 11 years solar cycle and every time during the Solar Minimum period.
    That said the good news is the following:
    The long-awaited mission marks “the first time that we send a satellite out to take images of the sun’s poles and in addition, getting the first ever data of the polar magnetic field,” said Daniel Mueller, ESA project scientist with the Solar Orbiter mission. “We believe this really holds the keys to unravelling the mysteries of the sun’s (11-year) activity cycle.
    “We will also monitor the far side of the sun, which we cannot see from Earth, and combine that with data from satellites and ground-based telescopes to provide a full 3D view of our star. And so the orbiter is really a laboratory, we have a suite of 10 sophisticated instruments that we will (operate) together to track the evolution of eruptions on the sun from the surface out into space, all the way down to Earth.”

    By having a greater understanding of our Sun, we will gain a far better understanding of its massive effects on our own climate, instead of the biased political big lie from the UNs IPPC political propaganda department.

  4. What we’ve got here iss a massive failure to communicate and mis-direct the herd…. because it’s a tradition ww especially leading up to and during this well forecast GSM – and pre-global dimming geoengineering with coal ash and red blood cells – “the solution to pollution is dilution”.

    search: “greta angry ago”
    maybe because (s)he’s just one more obvious dragster globalist psyop puppet/furniture CO2 hoax diversion.

    abrupt climate change and ease of virus management

    abrupt global dimming and ease of virus management

  5. (2/2)
    Louis Armstrong – That Lucky Old Sun (1949)
    Not so much everywhere in the world. Be Prepared. My GF’s son says that he’s stuck in-house for more than two days now and GF double checked again just now (but not reported anywhere in MSM) under martial law in “Beijing” right now. He says Beijing world no so wonderful, right here, right now…
    The Grumpy Grinch was right… too much CO2 and too many warm sunny deep blue white puffy cloud
    chemtrail free sky days. Bioweapon false flag theatre – foment cover for future war theatre – provide cover for ongoing martial law theatre – fabian style engineered blackouts etc. like Ven. / Ca. over the past decade or so. not just the Wuhan theatre

    meanwhile back to the Climate CO2 Emergency Crisis:

    Greta Thunberg to make new documentary series for the BBC

    The series will follow the teenage climate activist on her international crusade, giving an ‘inside view on what it’s like being a global icon’

    Emergency! Everybody to Get From Street!Emergency! Everybody to Get From Street!

Comments are closed.