Free Markets, Free People

Is the UN focus on “global warming” immoral?

Bjorn Lomborg thinks it is.  In today’s Wall Street Journal, he takes exception with the UN’s continued pushing for a “solution” for “climate change”, formerly known as “global warming”.  Lomborg thinks that it ignores the real problems out there and this focus on global warming takes money away from them for what is, at best, a marginal problem.

In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

For instance, says Lomborg, according to a recent study, if the UN spent .57% ($570 million) of the $100 billion climate-finance goal on mosquito nets to help control malaria, it could reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025 and save approximately 300,000 lives.

Instead, the UN is more interested in the world’s largest wealth redistribution scheme.  Somehow the scam has rich nations happy to pledge their citizen’s money and poor nations lining up to receive it.  How much will actually go toward addressing the real problems Lomborg highlights is anyone’s guess, but if history is to be a guide, not much.  There’s a reason the poorer countries are poor and that has much to do with who is in charge.

Anyway, Lomborg points to the obvious, or at least what should be obvious, in terms of this rush to be “green” and what the world (and the UN) could be doing instead:

Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence. Green energy sources may be good to keep on a single light or to charge a cellphone. But they are largely useless for tackling the main power challenges for the world’s poor.

According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.

2014 study by the Center for Global Development found that “more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if the Overseas Private Investment Corporation”—the U.S. government’s development finance institution—“were allowed to invest in natural gas projects, not just renewables.”

Wow.  Electricity.  Its been with us for over a century.  We all know its benefits.  We all know how well its access could help lift those without it out of poverty.

Yet the UN is more interested in chasing the chimera of “global warming” and its unproven science.  The reason, of course is power.  Money and control equal power.  And this scheme with $100 billion changing hands under the auspices of the UN offers undreamed of opportunities for those in the UN to engage in an unprecedented level of graft.  There just isn’t the level of opportunity in helping the world’s poor gain electricity.

As you’ve heard many, many times … follow the money.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

20 Responses to Is the UN focus on “global warming” immoral?

  • Lies are immoral, as a general proposition. They are ESPECIALLY immoral when they are HUGE, and pretend to represent good science (or anything rational).

    Lies like the climate myth kill people. The liars who support those lies HATE humanity. That lie is a crime.

    • Rags the attorney knows more about climate science than actual climate scientists….

      • So even though the Arrhenius greenhouse model has been proven non-applicable to the Earth as a whole time and time again, it’s still true because a climate scientist says so?

      • Well, Rags, who holds a BS as his undergrad degree, knows a lot about science generally.

        But he also has no big fat profit motive to lie about science. Contra Michael Mann, for instance. See Stick, Hockey. See also Fraud generally.

    • Unfortunately the lies do not eliminate the imbeciles and the “oh-so-concerned” among us.

  • Electricity yes, but renewable of course.

    Tough choices though – so which is more important?
    Creating reliable power sources to help ensure clean water, sanitation, or being able to charge cell phones thru renewable (whatever that means) solar or wind energy sources?

    Sheesh, no brainer, right?

    Will the chargers work on the latest iPhone, or do you think we’ll need to increase the climate change budget to purchase special adapters for them?

  • Realistically the guy is complaining about immoral activity from a world class collection of trough feeders who have turned corruption and immorality into a high science.

    • Please…!!! “…art form”. NOT ‘science’.

      • I kinda feel they really have perfected it from art to science.

        Credit where due, some of these sleazy blood sucking offspring of unwed parents are THAT good at being crooked pocket lining thieves.

        But on reflection perhaps I should decide how I really feel about them before I go on.

  • Sorry, Bjorn.

    Not enough of the right sort of graft, for the right sort of people. Mosquito netting puts money in two-bit warlord pockets. Climate change is a big boy’s game played with real money.

  • Just one more reason for us to leave the UN.

  • “Instead, the UN is more interested in the world’s largest wealth redistribution scheme. Somehow the scam has rich nations happy to pledge their citizen’s money and poor nations lining up to receive it. ”

    If the problem is rich nations giving money to poor nations, why would it be ok to have the UN spend rich nations’ money on mosquito nets? It would still technically be “redistribution”.

    • Given we’re going to be robbed whether we like it or not so some third world asshat can own a gold plated AK47, we’d prefer they rob us for the small change in our pockets, not the money we have in the bank account.

    • Funny thing here…

      lots of us would voluntarily contribute for mosquito nets and some good ol’ DDT.

      That WILL get to where WE send it. It won’t go into some thug0crat’s Swiss bank account.


  • The fact that Climate Change policies include biomass and ethanol belies the entire premise of Global Warming as these actually create more carbon emissions that common petroleum.
    All this points to the other “tent pole” … sustainability. This is all about “Peak Oil”. It about preparing the world for the end of oil, but lying to the masses with a tale fit for a cheap TV preacher.

    Climate Change is the “secular Apocalypse”.

  • The UN should be moved to an area without reliable electricity, clean water, and good sewage treatment.

    • Bill de Blasio is working on that.

    • The UN should be moved to an area without reliable electricity, clean water, and good sewage treatment.

      AND hot and cold running RPGs…!!!