One week ago, sources including WUWT and Euronews have mentioned a secretive meeting of the self-described elite that wanted to save the climate.
The meeting took place in the Verdura Resort, Sicily. The participants paid for their transportation but the local expenses – with hotels from $900 a night – were paid by Google and its local counterpart, Cosa Nostra. Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama, and Prince Harry were supposed to be stars of the meeting and others have arrived because they enjoy being seen as peers of these three morons – which they mostly are, indeed.
As I said, the guests have paid for their own transportation. To show that they're important, many of them took their private jets and yachts. Just the number of private jets was reported to be 114 by the Italian press. A decade ago, we would make fun of Al Gore and his private jet – what a hypocrisy – or an actress who flew in the same way.
Barbra Streisand recently sent a private jet just for her two puppies simply because she felt the urge to torture them and force them to listen to her delusions about the climate spoken in a distant country. Animal rights activists remained silent – just like the two doggy faces who can't clearly express how much they hate this babbling as well as the useless trips in jets.
But these days, with the number such as 114, the hypocrisy has been turned into a mega industry. Euronews estimates that over 4 tons of CO2 are emitted on a New York to Palermo flight of a jet. Multiply such amounts by more than 100... they determined that the CO2 emissions from such 100 flights are comparable to the emissions from charging of phones 50 million times. It's basically the energy that the U.S. – a country – needs to charge their phones for a whole day. A bunch of 100 morons has created the same emissions just to meet and talk about the fight against emissions.
Even after these years, it seems that they don't even understand what's strange about their flying private jets; and talking about the evil of the fossil fuels at the same moment. I think that most of them or all of them genuinely misunderstand what's shocking about the combination – they misunderstand it because they are really, really stupid.
They have apologists who are not this stupid but, like the writer of the Euronews article, they still end up thinking that it's not bad or hypocritical for them to arrive in yachts and private jets because...
But, with them all in one place, perhaps working together to achieve a common goal is worth it?Cool. So the ends justify the means. And, at the end, Euronews mentions that these folks are rich enough so that they may pay for the carbon indulgences. So the hugely higher energy prices aren't a problem for them – they can afford it – so everything is fine with their event. Is it?
Well, first, it is unquestionable that all these people may afford to pay the 5 times more expensive fuel prices and energy, including some extra 500% increase that you might need for the carbon indulgences. But is it enough to conclude that the ends – it's so great when 100+ pompous morons meet at one place to talk anti-scientific nonsense about a dangerous climate change (BTW in Czechia, we've had a colder-than-normal week or two and we will have a much colder-than-normal weather soon) – justify the means?
It's not OK at all and these stupid people overstate their wealth and importance, at least by four orders of magnitude. Let me show you the calculation.
One must distinguish two activities: those are that made consensually, with all the participants acting according their will (but perhaps in an unusual way because they were paid to do so); and those that are done against someone's will, e.g. against the will of a huge part of mankind. So which activities are consensual, which are not, and how much money do you need to create a consensus?
Now, according to the laws of the old world that we used to have, and we still have it to a large extent, it is perfectly legal to buy a private jet or a yacht and arrive to a meeting of 100 or 200 similar morons in Sicily with it. Also, it is perfectly legal to buy some indulgences from a postmodern replication of the medieval church – indulgences that are claimed to strip you of the guilt for the emissions that you have emitted but every sane person knows that this promise is a fabrication.
What is not consensual is to prevent some 7 billion people from using cheap energy. You know, a significant fraction of mankind – almost certainly a majority – doesn't want to lose its access to affordable energy sources. So plans to regulate carbon emissions are clearly non-consensual according to status quo. How much money do you need to change the people's views and are the billionaire rich enough to achieve such an outcome?
The answer is a resounding No.
Some ten percent of the world GDP – and 10% of $100 trillion is about $10 trillion (per year) – is spent for energy in the same interval of time. The switch to carbon-free energy would make the energy approximately 5 times more expensive, so something like 50% of the current GDP or $50 trillion per year globally. Or some $5 quadrillion per lifetime.
Now, the average billionaire at the Sicily meeting is worth less than $5 billion, and I am sure it's still an overestimate, so even if they paid their whole wealth to persuade mankind to abandon the cheap energy from fossil fuels, they would only collect some $500 billion – which is 4 orders of magnitude below the required expenses, $5 quadrillion per mankind and per the average lifetime. And I generously overlook the fact that most of them wouldn't be willing to pay their whole $5 billion: they were unwilling to pay even $900 for their hotel! ;-)
So cheap 100 morons, your importance is nowhere near to the ability to make similar changes to mankind and the way how it operates. You would need to be some 10,000 times wealthier – and pay everything you have
– for these plans to become realistic in a peaceful world. The only other option for your carbon-neutral fantasies is to change the world non-consensually.
But that won't work, either. If you, Leonardo, will really credibly threaten (or temporarily break) the access of billions of people in the world to cheap energy they need for the lives lived according to the standards that they're roughly used to, you will simply be killed. If your armies of aßlickers are telling you that you have good enough guards to protect your life after similar moves and the totally just and predictable dissatisfaction that would follow them, they are simply lying to you. You would die in a rather terrible death, like other climate alarmists who would put mankind's existential interests at risk. It would be the end of you while the access to energy would be restored. It's a matter of common sense.
It approximately boils down to the same number 10,000 because if you wanted to rob mankind of its access to fossil fuels, you would declare a war on mankind – or a huge portion of it. And because the motivation and the strength of the weapons may be considered proportional to the amount of wealth that is at risk, you – the collective of 100+ unjustifiably self-confident morons – would fight an army that is 10,000 times stronger than yours.
So enjoy your current position of hypocritical morons who are just brainless actors (this label applies to the likes of Barack Obama as well) who aren't taken seriously by anyone with his or her own brain – because if you became more than that, politically speaking, your life expectancy would shrink dramatically.
I wanted to say a few more words about the indulgences. When a billionaire pays the money for the carbon indulgences to another one, does it actually reduce the CO2 emissions by the promised amount? The answer is No. This answer is easy to see if you look at the evolution of the CO2 emissions in the years in which the carbon indulgences were traded. They just kept on increasing at more or less unchanged rate. Why is it so? Because it's much easier to fool the cap-and-trade system, move the emissions around, or persuade a friend in politics to loosen the caps – than it is to actually reduce the consumption of cheap energy – which is pretty much unavoidably tied to the quality of contemporary human lives.
The carbon indulgences have been a stupid game that couldn't work as a driver of global changes – it's at most a method to administratively relocate the CO2 emissions and to make a few green crooks rich.
One explanation why it's so may be linked to the same number 10,000 as before. Lots of money is already being circulated in the alarmist industry and the CO2 reductions – but it's only enough money to turn hundreds of green crooks into billionaires. But the actual price of genuine globally tangible reductions of CO2 emissions would be even greater – by orders of magnitude. If someone really wanted to go in this direction, he would spark the dissatisfaction that would indicate a huge war. Note that the French Yellow Vests started because of a few-percent extra tax on gasoline – which would only reduce the consumption of fuels in France, a not so decisive country, by less than a percent. To make a real difference, and to do so globally, you would create tension that would exceed the Yellow Vests by many orders of magnitude and the morons from the Sicily meeting should believe me that they wouldn't have a chance to withstand it.
So one may say that the counting indicating that "the purchase of the indulgences reduces someone's emissions" only works assuming that the total CO2 reductions are negligible – i.e. when you actually can't see the "benefits" of the CO2 reduction schemes on the global emissions. Any visible change would produce tensions that would challenge the billionaires' right to keep their money – or even their lives. There is a trade-off: the trading with carbon permits only has a chance to "hypothetically work" as long as it doesn't "really work".