MOSCOW, 05 Nov 2021, RUSSTRAT Institute.
What the organisers of the summit said
The climate summit that the G20 held in Glasgow and Rome did not go according to plan – the personal presence of the Presidents of Russia and China, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, could not be achieved. Although the White House reported that 90 states agreed to support the goals proclaimed by the United States and the EU – to reduce the amount of methane emissions by 30% by 2030, it will not really be possible to do this without Russia, China and India, which also refused to comply with this requirement.
Here it is necessary to explain why we are talking about methane. It is more dangerous than carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Although it owns only 16% of the structure of greenhouse gases (CO2 occupies 40%), however, methane is the fastest growing component and accumulates faster than the biosphere can decompose it. Here there is a closed “carbon circle”: the warmer it is (greenhouse effect), the more methane, and the more methane, the warmer it is.
Methane decomposes in the atmosphere in 10-15 years, and if warming is stopped by 2030, the irreversible climate crisis can still be stopped. Therefore, it is most profitable to reduce methane in the first place. The main producers of methane are cattle, manure (one of the main fertilisers in crop production, which releases methane during fermentation) and the oil and gas industry. They will not have any other technological alternative until the end of this century. The structure of their national economies cannot be radically changed in 9 years.
CO2 in the atmosphere decomposes over 100-150 years, that is, even if its emissions are stopped tomorrow, the inertial warming processes will remain and will last for another 5-6 generations. China produces 50% of the steel in the world, and all its metallurgy is based on coal, therefore, China’s CO2 production volumes are also the largest. India follows China, and in a short time (by 2030) it will not be able to completely re-equip its industry.
That is why these countries (plus Russia, which has its own reasons) did not support tough decisions on target emissions by 2030, agreeing in general with the need for comprehensive measures to combat global warming. Their environmental strategies require more time and more investment.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and US President Joe Biden assessed the results of the summit as disappointing. In different terms, both politicians expressed the same idea: they leave Rome disappointed, their hopes were not fulfilled, it is impossible to prevent a temperature increase of 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial level and to implement promises in the field of finance and adaptation of nature to climate change in the visible future.
The summit made the main decisions: to stop subsidies and investments in projects using coal, to strive to limit warming to no higher than 2°C, to plant a trillion trees by 2030. This is from the field of general declarations, in the execution of which scientists do not believe. And out of the essential, they decided to introduce a corporate tax of 15%, synchronise the issuance of state digital currencies, discussed the principles of international settlements and abolished increased duties on European steel in the United States and on American exports to the EU. That is, they returned to the state before Trump.
What the organisers of the summit kept silent about
One of the goals of the organisers of the summit was to demonstrate the loneliness of Russia and China in the face of the solidarity of the West. However, the absence of Putin and Xi, who addressed the summit participants via videoconference, did not allow them to show the world that the West is united, and Russia and China are isolated and forced to listen to lectures and teachings. This caused Biden to be annoyed, although Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida also did not come and spoke via video link.
We had to shift the media’s focus to the decisions of the summit, where opinions were divided: Italy found positive changes in the positions of Russia and China, and the United States was disappointed – and it is clear why. Russia does not intend to close its coal industry. The EU, as the energy crisis has shown, is also not ready for this, but unlike Russia and China, no one reproaches it for this.
From now until the end of this century, the environmental theme is focused not on human diseases from high dust and gas emissions, but on the climate threat from global warming, where natural factors account for 40% of the causes, and the consequences of human activity 60%. The climate agenda has become the axis of global geopolitics, a means of fighting for hegemony in the world.
The real goals of the organisers of the summit in Glasgow and Rome were the goals read between the lines, and not expressed in the final declaration. Here is what is said in one of the paragraphs of this declaration relating to a “fair and honest” digital economy:
“We recognise the role of technology and innovation in the recovery of the global economy and in sustainable development. We understand the importance of a policy aimed at creating a potential-revealing, inclusive, open, fair competition-supporting digital economy that promotes the use of new technologies, allows businesses and entrepreneurs to flourish, and protects and gives rights to consumers.”
We see the transfer of political language put into circulation in 2020 by the organisers of the Davos World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab and Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Now we will see the term “inclusive” everywhere – the soft infiltration of the terminology and ideas of the deep state through its information frontrunners into the political language and political practice of the West has begun.
In this sense, the last climate summit is a continuation of the goals proclaimed at the Davos WEF and an attempt to implement them in practice via the case of climate and, in part, the problems of the pandemic. It is no coincidence that the declaration of the climate summit mentions digitalisation in the context of not only climate, but also recovery from the crisis caused by the pandemic. That is, the digitalisation block goes beyond the climate agenda and is linked to the problems of macroeconomics.
“Digital transformation has the potential to increase productivity, strengthen the recovery process and promote shared prosperity on a broad basis,” the declaration says.
So, through the climate agenda as an excuse, the globalist justification of digitalisation is dragged into politics as the basis of any social and economic development in general. Naturally, on the basis of an even distribution of benefits within countries and sectors of the economy, as well as between states, a moral sanction for the plans of Schwab and Rothschild is an indispensable condition for the legalisation of digitalisation.
The abundance of propaganda cliches from the dictionary of the left-liberal globalist political sect is an indispensable condition for the publication of their theses. But it is through the climate that the theme of corporate domination over all the most important processes in the world is dragged through.
“We recognise the importance of a proper corporate governance system and well-functioning capital markets to support recovery and look forward to reviewing the G20/Organisation for European Economic Co-operation corporate governance principles.”
But there is no word about the state, like rope is not mentioned in the house of a hanged man. Globalists are going to solve the climate problem through capital markets and corporate governance. The state is left with only the function of social protection, but without pronouncing the word “state”. By default, because in the future, corporations will have to deal with social protection. They will determine what states will do, how they will do it and what they will not do.
It can take a long time to delve into what and how the organisers of the climate summit propose to do for the climate. This only distracts attention more from the summit’s super-task. And this super task is to show that without a world government managing globalisation from a single centre, no solutions to save humanity from the greenhouse effect, hunger, poverty and pandemics are impossible. That is why Biden and Guterres loudly declared dissatisfaction. They want to show that in the current situation, when there is no unity of command, it is impossible to solve issues of survival.
And in order for the people to mature faster, scientists lean on the justification of the imminent Apocalypse, if urgent measures are not taken and discipline and order are not brought. And corporations should direct it. There is no god but corporations, and Schwab is his prophet.
We are facing another transfer – marketing technologies into politics. Typical advertising is to scare and offer a solution. Humanity does not obey. The idea of the need for a world government in the face of the climate threat is a suggestive answer to the unspoken question “What to do?”.
Dissenting countries should be isolated, weakened, with territorial defragmentation and subsequent defeat. This is what financial markets are needed for in the topic of climate. Climate taxes collecting trillions of dollars in funds. Repressive practices towards competing states and the restriction of their foreign trade opportunities. An additional factor is coronavirus and other pandemics, which the WHO has already warned about.
The climate and the coronavirus with its forced vaccination and digitalisation are the starting lines of the globalists’ attack on sovereign states that threaten to align their economic potentials with the West and, as a result, strengthen sovereignty and destroy the unipolar world.
The digitalisation project looks like a technocratic one, it is easier to implement – who will object to putting things in order in the sphere of accounting? The fact that digitalisation creates an environment and tools for the total suppression of society is hidden and will become obvious when they move from climate to repression. But then it will be too late to resist.
The problem is that the West uses the technique of half-truths, its favourite and old strategy of manipulation. The problem of global warming really exists and it is really caused by economic reasons. But it is no coincidence that the Western media practically say nothing about Putin and Xi’s proposals to solve the climate problem. Of all the solutions, the West does not need the most effective one, but only those that do not allow the strengthening of Russia and China.
As a result of the struggle for the climate agenda, the division of the single world economy into clusters, fenced off from each other by walls of protectionist barriers, will intensify. The West intends to break these walls with a ramming threat to the climate and the danger of pandemics. The struggle must end with the transition of the world to uniform standards determined from a single centre. It will be the world government.
The organisers of the climate summit in Glasgow and Rome are silent about this, but they are pursuing these goals. The very choice of cities for the event indicates what goals are pursued by the organisers, what practice is the basis of the new climate movement, and who intends to direct it.
Glasgow was chosen to demonstrate support by the united West of London’s power over Scotland, and Rome – not to encourage Italy, but the Vatican for the support of Schwab and his globalists, a hint to the Italian authorities about the need to follow the Vatican’s position. London, Washington, Delhi, Beijing and Moscow are becoming new centres of the global struggle for dominance through the climate lever. All other participants here are either extras or supporting actors.
Now everything is allowed against those who do not obey the climate agenda formulated by the West. They can be easily turned into outcasts, stifled with sanctions, even bombed, and they can be tied to the topic of human rights violations. No rationalisation proposals from the outside are accepted. “He who is not with us is against us,” declared the West, beginning a new round of confrontation.
What is at stake is a question far more important than climate – the question of global power. In this case, only complete surrender is accepted. All talk of partnerships and compromise is a tactic and a screen behind which there is one goal. The one that will never be spoken about out loud in any liberal forum or in any liberal media. But this is exactly what will be the main reason for what is really happening.