The Ukrainian War - a Blessing?
Petteri Taalas, a Finn, is the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization. He was appointed by United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres and as well holds the position of co-chair of the UN climate scientific advisory group.
In the linked article Taalas said that the Ukraine war has been a “shock for the European energy sector” but further delineated that the subject war will hasten the utilization of fossil energy and then, speed up the green transition. And then further declares, “So from [a] climate perspective, the war in Ukraine may be seen as a blessing.”
Unless one is a fanatical neocon, the reality is no war can be seen as a blessing. How can massive deaths and destruction ever be considered with any degree of positive sanctification? Finland, which is located next door to Russia and fought them valiantly, while significantly outnumbered, in the Winter War’ of 1939-1940 should be the most disgusted by such an inane statement.
What Europe faces is an energy crisis created by their bad decisions in making Russia, despite concerted warnings and efforts, an exclusive supplier of liquid natural gas (LNG), while banning domestic supplies by prohibiting hydraulic fracturing and other methods of resource capture.
Taalas “warned that climate change is affecting electricity generation — and it could have an increasing impact in the future.” This is another absurd declaration. The reality is that the eco-political climate change policy which advocates for renewable energy takeover is adversely affecting electrical generation – these unreasonable and infeasible sources cannot produce electricity in any manner of sufficient or efficient quantity.
To work in the globalist ideological network of the United Nations, climate change is a philosophical urge one must have irrespective of personal belief. Any other publicized conviction would mean a very shortened tenor.
Instead of admitting their colossal blunder in making Russia a sole supplier of LNG, in the linked Politico article a research fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel argues, “We will look back at this situation in 10 years time and see, OK, that was the moment where we really got serious about the green transition and we really had the big green acceleration” as if Putin’s attack was a wholly beneficial catalyst.
A German politician goes overboard calling renewable energies “the energy of freedom”. If this was the case, the eco-politicians would have created a sufficient supply long before now, but there is no such sufficiency with wind and solar. Their words are meant merely to protect themselves from the consequences and discipline they so justly deserve - the act of CYA.
The article also says, “The green acceleration doesn’t mean Europeans will avoid a succession of brutally cold and expensive winters.” While the consequences and language are weakened, if Putin terminates LNG flow into Europe, there will certainly be people that freeze to death.
Relative to this quandary, Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zone writes an article entitled, “Irony: Greens Now Praying For A “Warmer” Winter To Help Germany Survive Energy Crisis”. A warmer winter would be better protection for the eco-politicians than the absolute fairy tales of “the energy of freedom”.