This is an incredible story of how we’ve got to this point of actually watching Bill Gates showing that, albeit indirectly, there are way too many people in the world which than implies de-population. At TED2010, Bill Gates unveiled his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe from CO2 and the necessary goal of Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050. Nine years after TED2010 Petsche and his squad are proposing the first steps to making Brecksville a sustainable community with no need need for cars and we will all be using bicycles to go to work and do our shopping. Make no bones about this as this is the progressive plan!
Watch the first 12 minutes of this clip and listen to Gates talk about CO2 reductions and then read the rest of this review.
This perceived problem of CO2 had its beginnings in the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, which met at Stockholm from June 5th to June 16th 1972. What happens over the next thirty years can be directly traced to this conference! The previous Video and the following discussion highlight only a few of the major events that have led many to believe that all life on earth is threatened by there being too many people a principle first proposed by Thomas Malthus, an early English economist. Malthus published and essay in 1798 titled An Essay on the Principle of Population where he proposed that sooner or later population growth will be checked by famine and disease, leading to what is known as a Malthusian catastrophe; which later technology prevented from happening.
The 1972 Stockholm conference led to European studies on the role of Carbon Dioxide and the environment such as the SCOPE 13 The Global Carbon Cycle paper published in 1979 by the Scientific Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) in Paris. This paper showed very dire results for increased levels of Carbon Dioxide, and reignited the old Malthusian catastrophe concept.
In conjunction with the Europeans climate work a request was made to the National Academy of Science (NAS) to study the issue. In 1979 the completed study, now called the Charney Report, agreed that there was a problem and justified their conclusions by defining a key number need in the science. They looked at the work of a young scientist working at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) James E. Hansen’s high estimate of 4.0 C and added .5 degrees C to it for uncertainty. Then they took another scientist working a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Syukuro Manabe’s low estimate of 2.0 C and subtracted .5 from it for uncertainty. Lastly they average the two which then gives us a 1.5 C Low value, an 3.0 C expected value and a 4.5 C high value as the CO2 sensitivity values which are what are still used today thirty five years later. Hansen and Manabe were the only two that had climate models that were reviewed in the Charney Report and Hansen’s paper was not officially published at the time.
James Edward Hansen while at NASA, was the driver for the US government’s push for control of energy. Hansen gave a presentation to the US congress in 1988 where he showed them what he thought would happen to Global Climate if we did not stop putting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the earth’s atmosphere. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used; A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. Essentially, a high and low estimate that bracketed the expected value (B) which Hansen specifically stated that he thought as the “most plausible”. Hansen used the 1979 NAS report as justification for the logic used to build these three scenarios.
Shortly thereafter we had the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up in 1988 by the United Nations (UN) at the request of two of its other organizations; the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) formed in 1950, and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) set up after the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. The IPCC’s mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change, specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change. A key point here is the IPCC was never charged with proving whether the Anthropogenic assertion true or not it was only charged with determining how bad it would be; in essence assuming it was true.
The next major event was the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. This was a comprehensive blueprint for creating a “sustainable” world which went from world governance to local school boards and zoning boards which meant that “every” aspect of a person’s life was to be controlled by UN Agenda 21. This program based on Carbon Dioxide rising world temperatures beyond the point where humans could maintain a civilization completed all that was needed for implementation and we were off on a Quest to save the planet.
Enter Al Gore who while in Congress became interested in Climate Change and he was instrumental in getting Hansen funding from Congress to study the problem of Climate Change which was known as Global Warming back then. Gore was very active in the environmental movement while he was Bill Clinton’s VP. Gore continued to promote the movement, after leaving office, and his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006; this documentary was a story about how the burning of fossil fuels were destroying the planet. It seemed to be targeted at young adults without the education to discern truth from fiction and it was very successful in achieving negative awareness on the subject. Unfortunately, the message in that documentary was not factually correct and appeared to be only an emotional appeal to support the regulation of Carbon Emissions’ (CO2) in some form of Carbon Tax.
An interesting fact, Al Gore was one of the investors that had helped set up a Carbon Trading exchange in Chicago along with a then young Barack Obama (on the board of the major investor The Joyce Foundation located in Chicago) that they named the Chicago Carbon Exchange CCX in 2003. When the American Clean Energy and Security Act was not passed by the US Senate in 2009 the CCX exchange folded the following year, 2010. Gore had been very vocal on this subject and if HR 2454 had been passed by the US Congress Gore would have become very wealthy; so the question is was his involvement in the movement because he believed what he was promoting or because what he was promoting would have made him very wealthy?
This brings us to Bill Gates with his Gates Foundation that has along with Al Gore taken up the cause of stopping Anthropogenic Climate Change which they believe will cause the planet to overheat and create a mass extinction and possibly even ending human life. This movement has now taken the look of a religion and therefore no debate allowed. A few years ago Bill Gates gave a presentation to a select group of supporters where as part of that presentation he showed described a simple equation to show what was needed to reduce Carbon Dioxide to save the planet.
The Gate’s equation is CO2 = P x S x E x C which is the amount of CO2 emitted is equal to the number of people (P), times the service they use (S), times the energy per service (E), times the CO2 per unit of energy. Gates after explaining this equation goes on to explain that we have to get the CO2 value to near “zero” which means that some of these numbers need to get close to zero. Gates doesn’t use any numbers and then he goes on to other subjects in the presentation.
The following numbers represent the estimated 2014 values for the US for the logic Gates presents and which we can then plug into Gate’s equation. GDP is around $18.0 trillion, there are probably 320 million people in the country, the energy we use is almost 100 quad and we produce 0.0000000663 metric tons of CO2 per BTU used. Multiplying all the values as shown in the following table gives 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 which is about what the US emits at present. Now looking at these numbers how are we going to going to get 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 even close to zero?
To properly look at Gates’ equation we must look at how all the variables, that he identifies, interact with each other to create Carbon Dioxide. Since this is a very simple equation it was easy to make four tables, one for each variable, and then vary the values to see how they changed the result. Each of the following tables is for one of Gates’ equation, for example the first one is Population (P). We see in the first line that population is 320,090,073 (the second column) and it’s identified as 100% (the first column) which is today’s number, and that using the Gates equation as shown in the table above equals 6,526.0 million metric tons of CO2. The next line down is 98% and each line down is reduced by 2% until we get to 80% in the last line. That represents a 20% reduction in the population to 256,072,058 people and 5,221.8 million metric tons of CO2.
The next three table for S, E and C follow the same logic although the reducing percentage is different for each. What we have then are 20% fewer people, 30% less GDP, 40% less energy and 50% less Carbon Dioxide if those levels can be obtained. The fifth table at the bottom of the page is the summary of the other four showing that if all those objectives were achieved Carbon Dioxide would be reduced by 83.2% to 1,096,368,000 million metric tons of CO2. I think that the reader can see that this draconian reduction would not be supported by the citizens.
The average person burns enough food in their body to release about 328.7 Kg of CO2 per year; so if there are 320 million people that’s 105.1 million metric tons per year. Unfortunately to get to zero emissions means there can be no people by definition. Further it’s obvious that the number of people is the driving force in the equation. But even that level (with no economy and no energy) is way more than Gates would like as we are still emitting 105.1 million metric tons of CO2 per year. So how does he propose to get to Zero without getting rid of almost all the people?
The Globalists like Gore, Gates, Soros, and others know that it’s not possible to get to zero human emissions as we showed in these tables. However they do want to reduce the world population to something close to 500,000,000 which is a 92.9% reduction which is not going to happen without a fight; not with 9 out of 10 people being eliminated!
The purpose of this paper and tables is to show that it isn’t possible to do what Gates and his friends say needs to be done — so what is their real motive if not to get rid of lots of people? Or maybe just like Jonathon Gruber they just think we are not smart enough to know they are trying to do something really really bad?